[theveterans]

I haven't taken Stats in forever, but I don't think you need 90%...more in the 55-60% range, I think, given a 0.05 P value or so.

You attribute these differences simply to bias when sighted listening?

wrapped the blind AB up: 14/15

50% confidence is just random guessing due to probability. Needs to be 95% identified correctly for 20 samples and is consistently repeatable on any given day. Sighted listening by default is biased listening

 

[BS5711]

I treat it as a fun hobby where I succumb to sighted listening deliberately, heck I don't even need to concentrate to hear a difference in IEM cable, DACs in sighted listening as the biases of sight, brain trickery and mood/feelings just overpowers my rational thoughts at least for me as an individual. But I 100% respect the concepts of audio science as I have tried a single blind volume match ABX test myself through a foobar comparator and utterly couldn't get at least 90% correct, just mere guessing

How do you rationalise that mindset with conversation elsewhere about IEM/cable/DAP 'synergy' like it is fact ?

If you accept that you couldn't differentiate different gear in a proper blind comparison what basis is there for discussing it with other folks like it is real ?

EDITED TO ADD: I ask this only in the context of a science based thread, I have no personal gripe.

 

[theveterans]

How do you rationalise that mindset with conversation elsewhere about IEM/cable/DAP 'synergy' like it is fact ?

If you accept that you couldn't differentiate different gear in a proper blind comparison what basis is there for discussing it with other folks like it is real ?

It's an anecdotal experience from sighted listening. It felt real because of brain trickery from memory discrepancies, mood/feelings etc. Anecdotal data point is not a fact, just a byproduct of sighted listening to me. As another anecdote, I lent my coworker my IEM cable and he swap it to his 64 Audio U12Ts and despite how much he is rationalizing that the difference he heard is placebo between stock and my IEM cable, his sighted listening and subconscious brain trickery prevailed anyways. He did tell me that neither cable sounded bad, but he convinced himself that the difference can be chalked up to placebo. My point is that sighted listening impressions is biased listening mean nothing nor facts scientifically. There's literally almost nobody in real life would put a blindfold in their eyes while doing a listening session and just enjoying the music

 

[BS5711]

It's an anecdotal experience from sighted listening. It felt real because of brain trickery. Anecdotal data point is not a fact, just a byproduct of sighted listening to me. As another anecdote, I lent my coworker my IEM cable and he swap it to his 64 Audio U12Ts and despite how much he is rationalizing that the difference he heard is placebo between stock and my IEM cable, his sighted listening and subconscious brain trickery prevailed anyways. He did tell me that neither cable sounded bad, but he convinced himself that the difference can be chalked up to placebo. My point is that sighted listening impressions is biased listening mean nothing nor facts scientifically. There's literally almost nobody in real life would put a blindfold in their eyes while doing a listening session and just enjoying the music

Of course but Head Fi is full of people that talk about this cable or that DAC or amplifier paired with this IEM or that headphone making a definitive difference to sound through the 'synergy' of the components like it is simply fact not perception. I recall a guy in the WC recently(ish) stating that if you can't hear the difference a certain cable makes to a certain IEM one must have hearing problems.

It is just my mindset but I personally can't talk about certain things making a difference even if I think I hear something unless I know it is real not potentially or even likely down to placebo.

I have a set of Solaris, I struggled with certain aspects, a guy stated to use a silver cable and it would help, he said it like it was fact not that it would help in my head, of course it made no difference. I initially thought it did, I might have even posted that, I retracted that after further testing when I established it was all in my head.

That is just me but I dislike information stated essentially as fact when it is almost certainly just someone's impression or perception that couldn't be substantiated with proper testing.

It sounds very cynical and grumpy old man like of me but I guess without people talking about perception not fact Head Fi probably wouldn't exist.

 

[theveterans]

It all boils down to individual's perception and brain's interpretation of stimuli. Those varies from person to person in sighted listening hence in your case, your sighted listening perception to those cable rolling differs than mine and obviously to others as well. Some hear/perceive more intricately than others in sighted listening but all that perception falls apart when biases are taken out through DBT ABX volume matched test. I can say in my opinion that those that are more sensitive to minute changes in stimuli (through sighted not blind don't forget) expresses this anecdotal experience in terms of system synergy/preference

 

[Ryokan]

It's an anecdotal experience from sighted listening. It felt real because of brain trickery. Anecdotal data point is not a fact, just a byproduct of sighted listening to me. As another anecdote, I lent my coworker my IEM cable and he swap it to his 64 Audio U12Ts and despite how much he is rationalizing that the difference he heard is placebo between stock and my IEM cable, his sighted listening and subconscious brain trickery prevailed anyways. He did tell me that neither cable sounded bad, but he convinced himself that the difference can be chalked up to placebo. My point is that sighted listening impressions is biased listening mean nothing nor facts scientifically. There's literally almost nobody in real life would put a blindfold in their eyes while doing a listening session and just enjoying the music

I was sure a dap didn't pair well with some iem's so didn't use them together but after a while tried them again while another dap was charging and they sound fine now. I was also convinced a cable was messing up the sound and changed it which seemed to work, then put the cable back on to sell them and tried them out and have been using them since.
Some iem's like the Andromeda's are low impedance and are supposed to pair better with daps under 1 ohm, but I use them with all my daps and haven't had an issue, though it sounds like the bass is better on one, though I haven't A-B'ed to be sure.

 

[theveterans]

I was sure a dap didn't pair well with some iem's so didn't use them together but after a while tried them again while another dap was charging and they sound fine now. I was also convinced a cable was messing up the sound and changed it which seemed to work, then put the cable back on to sell them and tried them out and have been using them since.

Mood/physical state, everything will form biases when evaluating/impressions. My sighted listening perception varies as well on a daily basis, but when all the biases are aligned on a specific day, I'm able to hear the supposed "audio nirvana" experience. Keep in mind we have brain burn-ins in the mix as well

 

[eq1849]

50% confidence is just random guessing due to probability. Needs to be 95% identified correctly for 20 samples and is consistently repeatable on any given day. Sighted listening by default is biased listening

I found a thread over at ASR from Amir speaking of ABX Stats.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

56% to PASS.

 

[BS5711]

It all boils down to individual's perception and brain's interpretation of stimuli. Those varies from person to person in sighted listening hence in your case, your sighted listening perception to those cable rolling differs than mine and obviously to others as well. Some hear/perceive more intricately than others in sighted listening but all that perception falls apart when biases are taken out through DBT ABX volume matched test. I can say in my opinion that those that are more sensitive to minute changes in stimuli (through sighted not blind don't forget) expresses this anecdotal experience in terms of system synergy/preference

I read that to mean some people have a more vivid imagination.

I am not interested in someone's imagined perceptions then stating that "item A has fabulous synergy with item B and they will sound phenomenal together" or something similar as is stated routinely around HF.

I want to know about that synergy if for example there is some sort of genuine compatibility due to the electrical properties not that someone perceived it due to other stimuli like what it cost or what the marketing or other HF members said it will do because that is what they imagined.

 

[theveterans]

I want to know about that synergy if for example there is some sort of genuine compatibility due to the electrical properties not that someone perceived it due to other stimuli like what it cost or what the marketing or other HF members said it will do because that is what they imagined.

Measurements would clearly show that with significant differences crossing audibility threshold, otherwise component matching and synergy are an anecdotal experience only unique to that person but can also be experienced by others if their brain interpretation is pretty close in the spectrum. Also, even a 0.01 dB of volume matching can kill the illusion quite easily even sighted

 

[bfreedma]

I found a thread over at ASR from Amir speaking of ABX Stats.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

56% to PASS.

You conveniently left out the number of trials correlating with a lower % correct to consider passing. I disagree that 56% is a “pass” but your posted link shows that 56% was assuming 160 tests. Your link also shows an 80% success rate as a “pass” with 10 tests.

Very few ABX tests and test subjects will ever be able to achieve 160 comparisons in a single sitting and the results aren’t cumulative across multiple sessions. Even if one were to agree with Amir, if you took 10 tests/comparisons per day for 16 days, “pass” would remain 80%.

 

[Ryokan]

Mood/physical state, everything will form biases when evaluating/impressions. My sighted listening perception varies as well on a daily basis, but when all the biases are aligned on a specific day, I'm able to hear the supposed "audio nirvana" experience. Keep in mind we have brain burn-ins in the mix as well

I'm at the point now where I feel unencumbered with believing things I once felt (more) sure about. With iem's tips make the biggest difference and can either make them sound meh, ruin the sound or make it sound 'spot on'.

 

[BS5711]

Measurements would clearly show that with significant differences crossing audibility threshold, otherwise component matching and synergy are an anecdotal experience only unique to that person but can also be experienced by others if their brain interpretation is pretty close in the spectrum. Also, even a 0.01 dB of volume matching can kill the illusion quite easily even sighted

Sorry I really don't want to be argumentative but I think we are on an entirely different page here.

I still read your rationalisation to mean that you accept that synergy, beyond genuine cases of electrical compatibility, is in the head due to biases of one sort or other but it is OK to talk about component synergy on a public forum like it is real because that is ones own personal experience.

That is, it is your real experience so it is OK to tell me how well two components will synergise but at the same time you know (but don't say at that time) there is no basis in fact that there is any genuine synergy that could be confirmed by testing.

To me that is burying ones head in the sand and passing on factually incorrect information. That is assuming of course that it is portrayed as "fact" as is so often the case on HF. Nobody says they found that $1,000 cable X was fabulous with IEM Y because it looks cool and cost a lot so they imagined that they sounded incredible together.

EDITED TO ADD: I guess this comes down to a matter of ones outlook on things, I am pragmatic and I want to know only the facts not what somebody perceives and it seems you take a more philosophical view where perceptions take on more importance because they might be similar to your perceptions.

 

[eq1849]

You conveniently left out the number of trials correlating with a lower % correct to consider passing. I disagree that 56% is a “pass” but your posted link shows that 56% was assuming 160 tests. Your link also shows an 80% success rate as a “pass” with 10 tests.

I have to read Amir's post a bit closer, I was in a bit of a hurty.....but going by your response....56% is a PASS because you have breached the threshold beyond random chance....given enough tests(n), given the probability and the confidence intervals. etc.

Very few ABX tests and test subjects will ever be able to achieve 160 comparisons in a single sitting and the results aren’t cumulative across multiple sessions. Even if one were to agree with Amir, if you took 10 tests/comparisons per day for 16 days, “pass” would remain 80%.

I'm not sure where you are getting one cannot take their time with these tests..., you just need n=160

 

[sunjam]

Suggestion: Stop trying to immediately respond to every post with attempts to find contradictions/minutia and invest that time in actually reading and absorbing the available research and content posted here. That would make for far better discussion going forward.

It feels very much like you’re using words/ concepts without a baseline understanding of them. While I don’t think you’re an AI driven bot, your responses remind me of those generated by Machine Learning solutions with an insufficiently trained or biased Large Language Model.

Thanks for your reply

Thanks for your suggestion. I agreed 100% what you said. I do agreed that I replied a bit too fast as my mind is running too fast... I will dial down a bit (one of the AI config? LOL). I waited for hours even for this reply.
Meanwhile, I think I should give you guys more time to think as what I brought here may be very different from other posters. Given my background, I could look at an issue from very different angles.

Here I use the plural form of the word angle. I can see from Physics (hard-core scientific angle), from Pscychology (how pepole feel, think, behave; how the effects of confirmation bias, visual / audio illusion affect one's behaviour, etc), and from Computer Science (practical angle: like various limitations, e.g. quantization limits, limitations of floating point representation, measurement tolerance, difference between accuracy / precision, etc).

It looks to me a lot of people have a tendency to look at an issue from a single angle as most people are specialized in one area.

Audio Science, like neuroscience (another subject I like), is a Multidisciplinary subject. It is very hard to master as it involves a lot of expertise in other areas as @gregorio mentioned earlier in his reply. Don't get me wrong. I am not an expert in Audio Science (as I emphasized earlier). To me, I think I am still at kindergarden level regarding Audio Science (well... may be at primary school level now). Therefore, I want to learn from you guys regarding Audio Science. Meanwhile, I would like to share what I found out too.

Incompatible contents? Are these contents factual?

I know the contents I brought are incompatible with the beliefs of most people here.
For me, I experienced the same unease/weird feeling too as I couldn't believe what I see initially when I saw the real stair step output graph from Topping E30 as shown in the original article. At that time, I have a feeling that "something is wrong...."

My understanding of digital audio told me that there should not be any stair step audio output. I could just walk away from that feeling and conclude that with something like to myself: "Hmm... yes, something is wrong... it should be the graph is fake, or the graph is taken from some internal testing points of the DAC rather than the final audio ouput, or the authour must be using some special, broken, weird filter to create such stair-step graph intentionally to prove something.... "

However, my critical thinking say no for such response and it prompts me to find out more of the root cause of this "unease/weird" feeling. I have a feeling that I need to double check all the things involved even from the very fundamental understanding/beliefs like "1+1=2".

Bingo! I found it, it was indeed related to the "1+1=2" belief in the sampling theory. I was wrong as I overlooked the limitation of the theory, i.e. it only works perfectly in the ideal situation. It would compromise under real world situation. This shows to me again that our deep beliefs regarding concepts lik the "1+1=2" or "universal truth" could be "correct but not absolutely"

I feel much better now. Everything is solved. My critical thinking helps me again. It never fails.

p.s.: Hmm... could AI-driven create the text above? ...... I think it could NOW as this reply was posted and the AI BOT can use my writing to create its content now. LOL