Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

Blind testing should not be undertaken as a hobby or leisure pursuit. Though is it really any less 'sad' than endless sighted testing?

I think manufacturers and reviewers and other 'industry professionals' should investigate blind testing, psychological effects etc. Else some people might think they are not really all that professional.

The subjective 'listen' is not good enough because the subjective listener is not good enough.

 

I'd sooner pay to see a spoon-bender (in fact where do you go for that?) than a materials science lecture!

Does science have firmer foundations than Astrology? Honestly, relieve me from the twilight zone.

I find it depressing that you seem less sure of your own existence than you are the existence of benzine.

Is your depression at this situation explicable scientifically?

Are you depressed or not?

 

What I think is odd is that people find laughable the notion that comparing audio equipment isn't most precisely done using only one's sense of hearing and nothing else, i.e., some kind of unsighted test. If people were really solely interested in how things sounded that's exactly what they would do, or, at the very least, they wouldn't find it a peculiar thing to contemplate doing.

Yes, IMO, but that's a h-u-u-u-u-u-g-e topic...

-- Ian

 

I find the 'hobby' thing a bit peculiar as well. What differentiates a 'hobby', from any other pursuit of the day? Is it less 'serious', less 'truthful', less 'real', less 'important'? Or am i reading too much into it?

 

Hobby: "A spare-time pursuit practiced for interest and enjoyment"

By all means, blind testing could be a hobby but personally I would not find it very interesting or enjoyable. As such, I do not recommend it as a hobby but I would not prohibit it from being a hobby.

For manufacturers, reviewers etc. it is more than a hobby so I expect more from them than from the hobbyists. Unless they offer their goods/services for free, in which case, I would class them with the hobbyists.

 

But when one actually listens to hifi in the home environment, it is not done blindfolded, hence any conclusions reached during blind testing would potentially become irrelevent/erroneous under 'normal' listening conditions by the same token? Sorry the analogy is poor, and perhaps not wholly beneficial or accurate, but it would be like purchasing a bike, based on a treadmill demonstration, to accurately account for its performance, taking no account whatsoever of the conditions of the road, and of course the potential dangers of cycling blindfolded or whatever. I'm not intentionally trying to be stupid, but i think underpinning this whole concept, is that first and foremost i am a human being before i am a listening device, and unless we start to roboticise ourselves in conjunction with our surroundings, the whole enterprise is pointless outside of the confines of the 'laboratory', where one can happily attend every Sunday morning. (sorry i'm being facetious again ) Besides, its a bit boring really, which must be trying to tell me something.

I don't see how when push comes to shove we can escape solipsism. In fact, even this, i have no knowledge of.....

I'd say it was an infinite topic, not just huge, without wishing to be pedantic. Describing a pencil absolutely would last for infinity.
All good fun though. If i could have the abridged version though

 

Yes, but 'spare-time'. See, to me this has whiffs of the 'wasting time' potentiality about it. Unfinished projects etcetera.

 

Absolutely, "normal" listening conditions include all kinds of non-aural information. Which is my point really, audiophiles like to assume they're only interested in pursuing perfect sound; they aren't. They're motivated by all sorts of other factors, and should perhaps stop pretending they aren't. There's no shame in it, after all.

It's easy: rather than disprove scepticism, do what Wittgenstein did, and point out its inherent absurdity:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...447/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_2_20/202-8215224-4498266

(A great book, BTW)

An abridged version might start with Imre Lakatos's Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, a very good shot across the bows of both relativistic philosophy of science (Feyerabend, mostly, although I still love his book Against Method), and the crudeness of Popper's falsificationism:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8268/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/202-8215224-4498266

As for astrology, Adorno's essay "The Stars Down From Heaven" (an analysis of the contents of an average day's astrology column in the New York Times) is pretty wonderful on alienation and the desire for mystical certainties.

Edited to add: It's a shame Adorno never wrote about audiophilia. He would have been pretty acute about it, I think.

-- Ian

 

I think the crux of the matter is, Blind listening tests can (NOT will) only show up differences if they are there.

But for deciding whether you actually like it, or can live with it, or need it, is all left completely unresolved.

In a blind listening test, you will always be influenced by what you have just heard before. C for instance sounds blimmin marvellous compared to that miserable B we've been listening to. C however might actually only be half as good as what you have already got at home!!!

Why does this happen? Because we are not machines, as has already been pointed out. Blindlistening might be a an entertaining exercise, but I still fail to see much ultimate value in it. You'd still need to take the lot away ffor a proper listen.

Cheers

 

Maybe a fellow traveller, who time out to try and help your race understand the ebb and flow of your dimension as you precieve it to be, yet you pour on more scorn, oh your such a blind folded race

 

Completely agree, but most of this discussion is about whether things actually sound different or not, not whether an individual prefers one or another. The point is that it is quite possible for any of us to have a strong (sighted) preference for something that we are possibly unable to distinguish unsighted. I've said all along that this fact doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it certainly seems to bother some people...

I haven't poured on any scorn at all.

-- Ian

 

Lazy Journalism Aid?

One thing I feel may be relevant to the discussion is the numerous reviews of the Naim Nait5. All of these went on about the great timing of the Five, which both myself and a very experienced Naim dealer felt had been compromised in favour of other qualities.

Leaving aside the possibility we are just wrong, could it not be that a reviewer sees a box from Naim and immediately has a lot of mental buttons pushed?

Timing-great
Stereo- weak
tonality.- hardish

Possibly the listening after this takes the form of a self fulfilling prophecy based on expectation. My feeling is that the 5 is far and away the best Nait tonally, it images surpisingly well, a pair of JM lab speakers confirmed this, but compared to earlier examples is a touch lazy.

This would possibly strengthen the case for some form of unsighted listening, in reviews.

 

Ian,

i've actually got home and dusted off the worthless PC, so that i could see you knock me on my ass

Regarding the blind testing thing, i think we are in agreement, so forgive me for splitting hairs.....

But maybe audiphiles genuinely ARE interested in pursuing perfect sound. Maybe they are NOT motivated by other factors, and are not pretending. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are still not subject to these factors, as we agree upon. But i get the impression that there is an accusation of complicity directed towards the discerning big spending audiophile. Like you say, even if this is the case, it doesn't matter, but it does not ensue that this IS the case.

Yes, but this still doesn't leave me with anything? The word itself is meaningless ad infinitum

Infinity disproves all in its compass? Hence the only hiding place is in nothingness?

I've not encountered the second book, so i can't really say much on that one.....so i'll skip to the last page.....

So science has 'firmer' foundations than astrology. But that is meaningless? Surely, there are no degrees of incertitude, without recourse to mathematics, which is likewise trapped in the same blackhole of nothingness. Which is absurd?

The question marks are merely illustrative of my own glaringly obvious lack of instruction in these matters. Hence i'm trapped in a layman's suit. Maybe if you could clarify my own position we could communicate further? I think Meursault employs the only available 'solution'. The rest is just an edifice of absurdity that i find incomprehensible, due to its thorough destruction by the offerings of infinity, itself part of the very same unreality.

I just find certainty anathema. And if knowledge contains an element of belief (is it still 'justified true belief'?) then i don't understand how the irrational element can lead to the rational whole, as belief is necessarily irrational?



btw - are you alive, bereft of senses, or is that merely absurd?

 

As a discerning big spending audiophile myself I know how easy it is to fool myself into hearing significant differences (precisely why I'm not pouring scorn on anyone, I'm in the same boat myself). I suppose it's possible for others to be motivated by nothing other than the search for perfect musical reproduction, but I have my doubts. As you said yourself, "first and foremost i am a human being before i am a listening device", with all the other stuff that entails, not least that our hearing is only one of our senses, and is mediated by conscious and unconscious processes that are exceedingly complex. Someone who is capable of listening to a system without making any extra-aural assumptions about it at all is probably not equipped to be able to get anything out of the experience of listening to music in the first place, I suspect.

BTW, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not saying everything sounds the same, just that, sometimes, things may well sound the same but we can completely convince ourselves they sound markedly different. I've caught myself doing this, and I doubt very much I'm the only person who has this flaw.

It's an old debate, much older than Descartes. The sceptic can always kick over the foundations of a belief, simply by appealing to the fact that we cannot prove that their objection to the belief is baseless ("how do you know you can trust your senses?", "how do you know the world isn't a figment of the imagination of an evil genius?", or whatever). Wittgenstein's point is that the fact the sceptic can do this simply points up the meaninglessness of the question they are asking: questions that are truly incapable of answer, purely by virtue of the fact that the structure of the discourse in which they are asked makes it impossible to answer them, are meaningless. As he says, what would it mean to live one's life as if one really believed in solipsism? The fact that such an existence is impossible means its an absurd question; we should concentrate on answering questions that may really have some effect on our practice.

There's an anachronistic story about Bertrand Russell, who allegedly received a letter from a reader praising him for something he'd written in an introductory text about solipsism: "Mr Russell, I can't understand why everybody isn't a solipsist!" I think this makes Wittgenstein's point very well. Philosophy ends up in absurdity when it's a discourse that precludes the logical possibility of answering its own questions. The answer is to cure philosophy of its delusions, not to try and answer the deluded questions.

It's a Rorsach test change of perspective type thing, not a "answer" per se, if that makes sense. (In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein uses an example of a line drawing that, depending on how you look at it, looks like either a duck or a rabbit. Philosophy sees the duck, when the problem would go away if only it saw it as a rabbit.)

How far off-topic is that, then?

-- Ian

 

cheers Ian, i just edited the last post as well, if that makes me more coherent.

Absolutely. But the conception that 'the solution to the problem is to be seen in the disappearence of the problem' is ridiculous nevertheless. Memory cannot be eradicated. At least he testified on his deathbed to having lived happy life...

Russell on the other hand is surely still turning in his grave in desperation. His 'sceptiscism as the lazy man's consolation' is testamant to that.

He drew it in the gravel with a walking stick during his time in Ireland and pondered over it for hours?

So, no absolute foundation for science then? (Go and tell me to read that book.)

If nothing else, in relation to the two gentlemen you made reference too, i would sooner lead the simple existence of Wittgenstein than the celebrity womanising maelstrom of Russell. My whole focus here is....

'we should concentrate on answering questions that may really have some effect on our practice.'

..the 'practice' in my interpretation being 'living' as it is understood in all its simpicity. Which makes the life of Witt far more attractive than that of Russell, and makes me question the knowledge espoused as exemplified in this thread, as IMO it has such a negative and destructive influence upon our human lives. Its validity/truth remains irrelevent as a consequence of its inherent absurdity, and it is not this that i am aiming for, it is merely a victim of the main target.

All of this, returning to an earlier point, is why we discuss music/hifi in terms of a 'hobby', which IMO has far more reaching consequences than we care to realise.

Hence, i am opposed to DBT really, not just indifferent, as they lay a claim to objective certainty, which is not merely superfluous to our requirements, but also, or maybe because of this, is highly dangerous.

 

Obviously not for those who think this sort of thing is sad or boring...

Courtesy of a recent Google newsgroup post that I did see, here is a page with many interesting links to articles http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

A very relevant quote from the page: "Many people hate double blind tests, because they do not always give the person the result they wanted; i.e., they often believe they hear things that they cannot. It is an unfortunate characteristic of humans that they tend to blame the test rather than to consider that they may have been mistaken about what they can actually hear. There have even been some fun tests where nothing is changed, but people swear they hear a difference!"

 

Cookiemonster,
Finally you have post something worth reading. How could you claim this thread is boring if it makes you think this deeply?

 

Orbiting high above the earth in ZG 5, Mikelab scours the
planet for signs of trouble and distress that audiophiles,
may encounter on their innocent travels.
Suddenly the DBT warning light flashes on Mikes consul,
impending initiation of a double blind test, at a sevenoaks
in East cheam.
Mike locks in the scanner & finds a seemingly innocent,
sales rep being 'HOODwinked' into one of these dastardly
secret initiation ceremonies
'Holy smokes', looks like a job for Audio-rescue
Mike, immediately calls home base on earth Zerogain island,
Graham N affectionately know as 'father', receives the earth
shattering news, 'No time to loose boys' we must act before
DBT & the Evil Dat's associates attempt to gain control of the
world, this is a job for 'Audio rescue'
“Robbo take ZG 1†and relay back the disaster as it unfolds,
don't get into to close, you how nasty the DBT boys can get,
we've heard they have their top agents on this one boys, Datty
the state side master of blind test terror & Lawrie
international man of blue curtain fame, so there pulling all the
stops on this boysâ€Â
“Cookiemonster, ZG2 is gassed up and ready to roll, take
Side-show 'Brains' bob along, his skills as a master debater
with come in handy if it gets tuffâ€Â
“Now get going boys & good luck on this dangerous missionâ€Â
Audio Rescue is Gooooooooooooooo.......................

Tune in on Wednesday for the continuing saga with Audio Rescue

 

Re: Obviously not for those who think this sort of thing is sad or boring...

Edit: Following atricle is recommended http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Schneider/Schneider.html Huh? No. Not for those who think this is sad or boring, of course.

Well, I, like, tried an edit but I, like, ended up doing a quote. File me under 'dumb'.

 

The thread as a whole is far from boring? Its DBT i find boring, nothing has changed there. In fact anything remotely scientific is insanely mind numbing. I make no effort to familiarise myself with its tenets, equations and laboratory techniques. I would rather put a bullet in my head. A much speedier and far less painful death.