The Death of High Fidelity

[wonderwrench]

Originally Posted by Baud

To make the things short, I do totally agree with k0NG0 and ctal.

Ditto!

[k0NG0]

Also, to scientifically test someone's ability to tell A from B what's needed at minimum is a blind test. Preferably a double-blind test. Because data is always tainted otherwise. It's called psychoacoustics for a reason. The frequencies your inner-ear can capture are determined by a mechanical process, but listening to something goes beyond that; this is irrevocably true.

That is to say: you can hear a clear difference even if you're hearing two identical recordings. Depending on your mindset. Unless you're a machine.

[ctal]

TQ -- Thanks for providing us with some good perspective from an experienced pro!

Originally Posted by k0NG0

Also, to scientifically test someone's ability to tell A from B what's needed at minimum is a blind test. Preferably a double-blind test. [snip] You can hear a clear difference even if you're hearing two identical recordings. Depending on your mindset.

Agreed 100%. I would add that the volume levels have to be matched within 0.1db for the A/B comparison to be valid.

I think that anyone listening to the same recording twice consecutively, on the same equipment, will pick up different subleties on the second listening, making the two listenings seem to sound different. Some of the more off-the-wall high-end reviewers don't seem to realize that. Just as most people watching a film twice consecutively would pick up things that they missed the first time.

I want to add my thoughts about why so many reported blind or double-blind listening comparisons fail to reveal differences between equipment, particularly amplifiers. I think the major reason is lack of familiarity by the subject with the system being listened to, including particularly the speakers, the room, and sometimes the recording as well. Listening on an unfamiliar system, I believe, causes the relatively small differences the listener is trying to detect (say between amplifier A and amplifier B) to be swamped by the differences in the speakers and the rest of the equipment in comparison to what he or she is used to. Once the listener has spent enough time with the particular system to have "locked in" on its particular sound, on particular recordings, then he will be much more sensitive to substitution of a component that changes that particular sound.

This all assumes that everything in the system, and the recording itself, are of high quality. Trying to detect differences between Garbage A and Garbage B is a lot more difficult (and also pretty pointless) than trying to detect differences between Unknown B and Realistic Sound A (pun on "Realistic" most definitely not intended).

Regards,

-- Al

[TQ]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

TQ, everyone knows you're a robot. No need hiding it.

And I can dance The Robot very well, too, thank you very much.

Herbie Hancock forever!

[TQ]

(...don't tell anyone that I started listening to Herbie back when he was playing with Miles. It would make me uncool...)

[XJ.]

LOL TQ! That some serious credentials for Herbie. I won't tell anyone if you don't mention that I was into Grand Master Flash and the Fab 5 way b/4 Rap was cool