[Wind Chaser]

IME VMPS speakers don't sell better because:...

Because they are relatively unknown and there is tremendous competition at any given price point.

Unless you some how separate your self from the pack, you can't build any momentum.  And even if there is a clear distinction between what you produce and everyone else, it still takes a long time to tip the market.  IMO Magnepan is the only manufacture that has really achieved this.  They are one of those companies that have been around from the beginning, when there were very few players.

[sts9fan]

Personally I don't trust audiophiles that trust their ears too much. 

[darrenyeats]

One argument I've heard against blind testing is that it actually *adds* a mental influence on the listener...that there is added stress of trying to determine differences and a fear of being wrong...

I can imagine this happening in some circumstances, for example if someone has made claims about this or that, and doesn't want to be embarrassed. Maybe it's unfair to put retailers on the spot with blind tests for this reason. Maybe.

But for your average audio enthusiast there is nothing to get "wrong". If I and a friend can distinguish between speaker X and Y blind, and I prefer speaker X and she prefers speaker Y there is no conflict - I should buy X and she should buy Y. Blind listening doesn't mean everyone hears the same. Again, if I can't distinguish between speaker cable X and Y blind I can just buy the cheapest. There is no pressure if you're simply trying to hear without prejudice.
Darren

[PhilNYC]

But for your average audio enthusiast there is nothing to get "wrong". If I and a friend can distinguish between speaker X and Y blind, and I prefer speaker X and she prefers speaker Y there is no conflict - I should buy X and she should buy Y. Blind listening doesn't mean everyone hears the same. Again, if I can't distinguish between speaker cable X and Y blind I can just buy the cheapest. There is no pressure if you're simply deciding what you prefer.
Darren

This is the same thing that is said by average audio enthusiasts who don't care about blind testing, claiming that there is no motivation for them to hear differences and therefore are not affected by anything other than what they are hearing when comparing things.

I completely agree with the notion that your mind has a big influence in what/how you hear.  My main point is that blind testing does not eliminate that influence...

[jrebman]

Thanks for the reality check -- Ted B. and Bob M. -- very well put.

-- Jim

[mcullinan]

So maybe the answer is to relax, have a beverage of choice and spin some disks. Isn't that supposed to sooth the savage beastie?

Enjoy,
Bob

BobM, you are my hero.  Drinks for you at RMAF!

HEY Bob M is MY hero You cant have him. ME thinks this will be a duel to the death! We will have a drinkoff consisting of 6 bottles of Tequila! Unfortunately I cant make it to RMAF sooo Chris will have to do my drinking! O yeah! GL Chris.
MIke

[aerius]

That's why blind testing is so important, because it removes a whole raft of influences on the 90%. Without it, you're hopelessly influenced by all sorts of mental factors which will cause you to hear differently. And I mean REALLY, ACTUALLY hear differently. There is no such thing as "thinking you hear differently". It makes no sense to say something someone hears is just in their head - hearing IS in your head!!!

One argument I've heard against blind testing is that it actually *adds* a mental influence on the listener...that there is added stress of trying to determine differences and a fear of being wrong...

Funny enough I was flipping through an issue of TAS yesterday which had an article on this, how true the article is I don't know, so take it for what it's worth.  Anyway, a broadcasting company in Europe was testing out a couple codecs for use in their new digital broadcast system, and they'd setup a huge double blind test to find the best one by comparing both against the reference.  They racked up something like 20,000 hours of test time, and in the end found that both codecs were indistinguishible from the original. 

But then they also sent the test files to some audiophile guy, and in sighted listening he soon identified a glitch in the codec which gave off a constant 2kHz tone or something like that.  Then they redid the blind test after cluing people in a bit and this time most of them heard it, and could distinguish the original from the codec molested copies.

[Freo-1]

If we could snap our fingers and have a dozen different speakers through our systems I think we all could make more informed decisions.  I wish it were that easy.  I would love to try a few more different components but time and money does not make that a viable option.

Also, take three pro reviews and gather all the descriptive words used.  Now try to write a review with out using any of those words.

You are a redwings fan and clearly cannot be trusted.

And you sound like a disgruntled Penguins fan. (Hossa will look good in the winged wheel!)    


Seriously, there may be some truth to people new to the audio world, but eventually, you work out your preferences, and go from there. Gear that is in line with your preferences is good, while gear that is not is no good.

Reviews of audio gear has gone off the rails somewhat (IMHO). In the golden age of audio, publications like "Audio", "Stereo Review", and the early Stereophile had equipment reviewed mostly by engineers, who understood what they were reviewing, and understood the physics behind the equipment. They would provide charts, graphs, and measurements of the equipment under review. They would attempt to correlate how the unit sounded in regard to measured performance. They were also smart enough not to get too hung up on the nth degree of distortion, and were able to put the experience all in perspective.   

Sadly, many (but certainly not all) of the reviews on equipment today are done by people who do not have the engineering background required to conduct a proper review. All you wind up getting are half baked "opinions" based on a very suspect knowledge base. When I read comment such as "Systems that are less than 20,000 really cannot provide true high end sound", you KNOW they are truly clueless!

So, if one really wants to obtain quality sound, best to learn the basics regarding the physics and engineering involved with audio. Otherwise, " Caveat Emptor"

[warnerwh]

Tyson: You know you're right and I agree.  Easily the majority of audiophiles doubt their own ability to hear.  There are several reasons for this. I'm not criticizing anybody as I've made the same mistakes that I see being made constantly.  I'm completely happy with my system and have been for some time now. 

Just like many things the most important part is to get the fundamentals right before you try anything else, something rarely done. My opinion of reviewers is like that of politicians which is as it should be.

[doug s.]

I'd say that's true for most people starting out, but eventually you get to the point where you know what your preferences are.  Much learning comes by the experience of trial and error.  In short, I don't trust anyones ears but my own which are only good up to about 12K...

Why can't you hear speakers that cost more than 12k? 

rim, i think wind is saying his hearing is good only up to 12khz.   

doug s.

[darrenyeats]

That's why blind testing is so important, because it removes a whole raft of influences on the 90%. Without it, you're hopelessly influenced by all sorts of mental factors which will cause you to hear differently. And I mean REALLY, ACTUALLY hear differently. There is no such thing as "thinking you hear differently". It makes no sense to say something someone hears is just in their head - hearing IS in your head!!!

One argument I've heard against blind testing is that it actually *adds* a mental influence on the listener...that there is added stress of trying to determine differences and a fear of being wrong...

Funny enough I was flipping through an issue of TAS yesterday which had an article on this, how true the article is I don't know, so take it for what it's worth.  Anyway, a broadcasting company in Europe was testing out a couple codecs for use in their new digital broadcast system, and they'd setup a huge double blind test to find the best one by comparing both against the reference.  They racked up something like 20,000 hours of test time, and in the end found that both codecs were indistinguishible from the original. 

But then they also sent the test files to some audiophile guy, and in sighted listening he soon identified a glitch in the codec which gave off a constant 2kHz tone or something like that.  Then they redid the blind test after cluing people in a bit and this time most of them heard it, and could distinguish the original from the codec molested copies.

The story is about one person being more observant (hearing-wise) than a whole bunch of other people, and the other people hearing the difference when pointed at a particular aspect of the sound.

In fact the story could have played out just the same with totally sighted listening. The fact the listening was blind has nothing to do with the point of the story from my POV. (Even assuming the story is true of course.)

Hey if you're hearing-challenged sighted you'll be hearing-challenged blind. The point is to remove mental bias - not to supernaturally boost people's hearing abilities!
Darren

[*Scotty*]

The anecdote also fails to mention if the listeners were trained observers or the "man" off the street. My mother who had listened to my fathers stereo for years had never noticed the phenomena of a virtual stereo image.  Until it was pointed out to her it did not exist and she did not perceive it. Inconceivable! But true. She just heard music in the room and no analytical listening was involved.
Scotty

[jrebman]

Speaking as a formerly sighted, and now totally blind audiophile, I can say that it does make a difference.

A little explanation is in order though.  True enough just about anything I do, whether it be travelling down the street or across continents, building things -- wood electronics, etc. -- is usually perceived by those around me to be some sort of supernatural talent, and same goes for listening to audio gear.  People just assume that as I'm blind I again must have supernatural hearing.  I don't.  What I do have is over 18 years of experience in relying on my ears to fill in the missing visual information, which translates into paying much closer attention to things, but with a much higher percentage happening at the subconcious level as compared to a normal person.

Yeah, what's normal? A setting on a dryer.  But it gets the point across.

So, back to the normal person -- he/she typically uses about 94% - 98% of his conscious cognitive bandwidth processing visual information, and hearing, haptics (touch), and olfactory inputs occupy the rest.  This of course varies greatly from person to person, and about a zillion other factors, so just take as a generalized concept.

When I sit in front of my stereo, I'm not having to deal with any visual input taking a slice out of that cognitive bandwidth, so naturally more of it is given to auditory processing.  Now, it's not like I just invert the ratios and use 9x% on auditory, because there is still mental imagery going on, as well as that subconscious correlator that is processing peripheral information -- is somebody coming into the room?

The point of all this is that I certainly have noticed in my years as a blind person, I hear things that others don't -- whether that be in day to day life or in front of an audio system.  Please note that this is not the same as saying that I hear better -- it means I just may be more subconsciously taking in more details, and of course, a trained audiophile/listener, whatever you want to call yourselves, can do the samme, but it usually takes a very specific set of cognitive and environmental conditions -- mood attention span, dim lighting, etc.

Many years ago Bud Purvine did some listening tests with off-the-street type listeners of all backgrounds, and also had some blind subjects take part, and to a person, the blind listeners heard the difference that none of the other Joe Pedestrians did.  He'd be the one to ask about specifics though.

Hope this all made some sort of sense -- it's a little hard to squeeze enough cognitive neuropsychology into a short reply

-- Jim

[darrenyeats]

Jim, thanks for your post. Fascinating that your hearing has improved so much, I've heard about this before.

I ought to clarify when I stated "sighted" or "blind" I meant it in the sense of knowing what piece of equipment is being heard etc. Hence it doesn't mean you can't use vision assuming you have that faculty. For example, I've read a review of televisions conducted "blind", meant in this way, even though they viewed the picture of course. The real idea is to reduce the mental influences on what is heard (or seen or tasted) and as discussed hearing is mostly a mental process to begin with so the result of what you actually hear is quite susceptible to these.

However, it would be very interesting to do some tests to see how much sharper your hearing is than the average as a blind person. I think it's pretty well known some people hear better than others in general although it's not a one-dimensional judgment. By that, I mean perhaps one person can hear more extended treble and someone else is more attuned to details, so there are many aspects to 'good hearing'.
Darren

[Mag]

Speaking as a formerly sighted, and now totally blind audiophile, I can say that it does make a difference.

A little explanation is in order though.  True enough just about anything I do, whether it be travelling down the street or across continents, building things -- wood electronics, etc. -- is usually perceived by those around me to be some sort of supernatural talent, and same goes for listening to audio gear.  People just assume that as I'm blind I again must have supernatural hearing.  I don't.  What I do have is over 18 years of experience in relying on my ears to fill in the missing visual information, which translates into paying much closer attention to things, but with a much higher percentage happening at the subconscious level as compared to a normal person.

Yeah, what's normal? A setting on a dryer.  But it gets the point across.

So, back to the normal person -- he/she typically uses about 94% - 98% of his conscious cognitive bandwidth processing visual information, and hearing, haptics (touch), and olfactory inputs occupy the rest.  This of course varies greatly from person to person, and about a zillion other factors, so just take as a generalized concept.

When I sit in front of my stereo, I'm not having to deal with any visual input taking a slice out of that cognitive bandwidth, so naturally more of it is given to auditory processing.  Now, it's not like I just invert the ratios and use 9x% on auditory, because there is still mental imagery going on, as well as that subconscious correlator that is processing peripheral information -- is somebody coming into the room?

The point of all this is that I certainly have noticed in my years as a blind person, I hear things that others don't -- whether that be in day to day life or in front of an audio system.  Please note that this is not the same as saying that I hear better -- it means I just may be more subconsciously taking in more details, and of course, a trained audiophile/listener, whatever you want to call yourselves, can do the samme, but it usually takes a very specific set of cognitive and environmental conditions -- mood attention span, dim lighting, etc.

Many years ago Bud Purvine did some listening tests with off-the-street type listeners of all backgrounds, and also had some blind subjects take part, and to a person, the blind listeners heard the difference that none of the other Joe Pedestrians did.  He'd be the one to ask about specifics though.

Hope this all made some sort of sense -- it's a little hard to squeeze enough cognitive neuropsychology into a short reply

-- Jim

I couldn't agree with you more. Being blind you are totally focused on sound.
When I listen, often I am surfing the net or watching TV with the sound muted. Even so these visuals distract to some degree my focus on the audio sound. If I have a light on outside my audio room it distracts my attention.
For me to be totally focused on audio sound. All bright lights and TV and computer monitor have to be off.

[Wind Chaser]

I'm not blind, but I find it is much more enjoyable to listen in the sweet spot with my eyes closed.  How people can listen critically with their eyes open is a mystery to me.  By cutting off the visual input I get a much better auditory sense of what's going.  If everything is set up right in a synergistic system, the illusion becomes much more tangible and the mojo factor increases substantially.

[dorokusai]

A good friend of mine turned me on to that a long time ago. It makes so much sense for me, since I'm especially visually distracted. I always critically listen sans eyeballs.

Mark

[Frihed91]

I think this statement is true when it comes to almost any large purchase (large relative to our income): our confidence in our powers of discrimination isn't as great as it is when we buy socks!   It is not isolated to audio.  Consider these three statements and the behavior they imply:
1.) A sounds better than B
2.) I would be willing to pay $1,000 more for A than B
3.) $8,499 for speaker A. OK. Who do you want me to write the check out to?

The opportunity cost of statements 1 and 2 are zero.  Talk is cheap.  You forego nothing.  The last one will cost you $8,499.  It could be an expensive mistake.