advertisement


Challenge From Harbeth - Free M40.1 For Those Who Can Identify Amplifier Differences

Status
Not open for further replies.
There seems to be a lot of false justification going on to explain why this test can't work instead of trying to find a way to win a pair of expensive loudspeakers.

Personally, if I thought there was a cat in hell's chance of winning the things, I'd take the test, win those dreadful speakers and say "Helllooooo eBay!" That would cover the time and money involved in setting up the test if was winnable. I'd probably be up by a grand or two.

I guess the problem is most of you don't think it's winnable. And because of that, rather than admit the cognitive dissonance inherent in knowing simultaneously that your electronics don't make a difference (but pretending to yourself that they do), you invent a series of obstacles and criticisms of the test instead.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, isn't this the day we nailed an imaginary man to an imaginary tree so that a chocolate rabbit can lay eggs?
 
The man and the tree were real. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that the man had, some 30 or so years earlier, been conceived immaculately.

Because it is unlikely that the man was conceived immaculately you are concluding that he did not exist. Using the same logic you are concluding that if two amplifiers cannot be identified in this particular test it is because they sound identical and will be indistinguishable in any level-matched blind test.
 
It seems to me, if Mr Shaw really cared about 'exposing' this misconception he would care enough to construct the test himself, rather than just specifying it!
 
It is a cheaper version of Randi's million dollar cable challenge. Neither had any intention of parting with any cash/goods or investing any time of their own. Both are like the game where you win a prize by balancing a coin on a lemon with a flat surface cut from the side floating in water. The shift in centre of gravity gets you every time unless you hollow out the lemon.
 
Steven Toy said:
The man and the tree were real. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that the man had, some 30 or so years earlier, been conceived immaculately.

Because it is unlikely that the man was conceived immaculately you are concluding that he did not exist. Using the same logic you are concluding that if two amplifiers cannot be identified in this particular test it is because they sound identical and will be indistinguishable in any level-matched blind test.
Click to expand...

No-Jesus, you need to get out more!
 
I find AS's criteria perfectly sensible, and as I see it is helping to hear any differences between amplifiers, not hindering. This is because audio memory is very short, so if one hears a whole track or even a few minutes, by the time the switchover is done and another few minutes has passed, what the first one sounded like has gone.

Rapid switching back and forth is the best way of listening for differences. Listening for which is better, is completely another discussion, that may well take longer, but if what we want to ascertain here is whether a difference exists or not. That's best done with rapid switching.

S.
 
Ah, there's a third caveat that dooms the test to failure: listener fatigue. 6/10 yes. 9/10 even but 60/100 no chance unless you had 10 listeners each doing it 10 times. One poor chap listening through 100 switches would be driven insane!
 
Evil Emperor said:
There seems to be a lot of false justification going on to explain why this test can't work instead of trying to find a way to win a pair of expensive loudspeakers.

I guess the problem is most of you don't think it's winnable. And because of that, rather than admit the cognitive dissonance inherent in knowing simultaneously that your electronics don't make a difference (but pretending to yourself that they do), you invent a series of obstacles and criticisms of the test instead.

I'm with the Emperor.
Click to expand...
 
So, in the end we audiophiles don't really believe what we say, do we. If people believed that amps sounded different they would be falling over themselves to claim a very valuable pair of speakers, free! All the sophistry on this thread cannot disquise the fact that Harbeth have scored a direct hit. No wonder we aren't taken seriously!.
 
Post #101 on the previous page repeated for Serge's benefit:

It is the switching apparatus that will be the ultimate caveat, so it seems, as well as the switching process itself. When you make the switch you are not comparing the same sounds; what you hear after the switcheover is different from what you heard before anyway as music is a phenomenological series of events in the cosmic time domain. The only true test is comparing exactly the same material, the same portion of a given track therefore needs to be heard twice. Unfortunately this relies on memory.

Whilst memory may be poor for retaining given characteristics of individual sounds, it may be astonishingly good at noting the relationship between different sounds occuring both sequentially and simultaneously.

To add: you could compare using a short segment of a track lasting, say, 15 seconds.
 
paskinn said:
So, in the end we audiophiles don't really believe what we say, do we. If people believed that amps sounded different they would be falling over themselves to claim a very valuable pair of speakers, free! All the sophistry on this thread cannot disquise the fact that Harbeth have scored a direct hit. No wonder we aren't taken seriously!.
Click to expand...

Harbeth only score a direct hit in the company of the glib who gloss over the detail.

If I were to correctly identify two amplifiers ten times out of ten in level matched double blind abx tests listening to the same short segment of a track with the additional handicap of having to rely on memory but with no switch box in line I would not win a pair of Harbeth speakers.

True or false?
 
if the test is to identify which amplifier is which, there may be a plan:

1. test using the Harbeths that present the most difficult load to the amplifier (probably P3ESR?)
2. know where the crossover region is
3. know the speakers & amps in advance
4. pick music that has a lot of energy in the crossover region
5. listen for differences in the crossover region

There are other amp engineering qualities that could be used to win this challenge - notably PSRR - i.e. amps of the same nominal power and FR may be distressed in audibly different ways when working hard.

I do think the insistence on short snippets of listening would confuse the issue - listeners should have as long as they like to compare the amps.
 
honmanm said:
if the test is to identify which amplifier is which, there may be a plan:

1. test using the Harbeths that present the most difficult load to the amplifier (probably P3ESR?)
2. know where the crossover region is
3. know the speakers & amps in advance
4. pick music that has a lot of energy in the crossover region
5. listen for differences in the crossover region

There are other amp engineering qualities that could be used to win this challenge - notably PSRR - i.e. amps of the same nominal power and FR may be distressed in audibly different ways when working hard.

I do think the insistence on short snippets of listening would confuse the issue - listeners should have as long as they like to compare the amps.
Click to expand...

But that would be hollowing out the lemon.
 
Evil Emperor said:
After all, isn't this the day we nailed an imaginary man to an imaginary tree?
Click to expand...

If that's the case there does seem to have been a miraculous amount of fuss about a man who didn't exist. If only there were more people who didn't exist like him. Imagine the good that ten non-existent Jesuses might have achieved. Imagine millions. The world should be almost... well, heavenly.

Also, I don't recall the New Testament saying all that much about chocolate rabbits. Perhaps you're confusing your "imaginary man" with someone else who didn't exist ;-)
 
paskinn said:
So, in the end we audiophiles don't really believe what we say, do we. If people believed that amps sounded different they would be falling over themselves to claim a very valuable pair of speakers, free! All the sophistry on this thread cannot disquise the fact that Harbeth have scored a direct hit. No wonder we aren't taken seriously!.
Click to expand...

Interesting that this is your interpretation. Believing in what one says and needing to convince others of those beliefs are two quite separate things.

If one wants to closely control the test specification, one is also obliged to construct the test (in my opinion); otherwise it's just empty rhetoric.
 
I actually agree with Steven.

You know when you're at the airport, and you see an Audi R8 and a Ferrari. . in a competition?

This harbeth tests smacks of that. The test smells of being rigged to fail.

I can absolutely tell the difference (blindfolded or not) between a Bel Canto and a Cyrus for example. Both measure well.

Why don't I go through all the effort and set all this up -???

1) I can't be bothered

2) A pair of Harbeths has no interest to me, other than their second hand value on Ebay.
 
I'm willing to participate in any effort to win the speakers, as an agnostic. I think I have heard differences between amps on many occasions, but I might have imagined it, and the differences I thought I heard may have been mostly to do with variations in frequency response. I'm also not sure that short clips of a few seconds give one a good chance of discerning the kinds of differences between amps that I think I have heard, as they are usually quite subtle.
 
YNWOAN said:
It seems to me, if Mr Shaw really cared about 'exposing' this misconception he would care enough to construct the test himself, rather than just specifying it!
Click to expand...

I was thinking that myself whilst reading his strangely rambling "statement"
Errol
 
I think there's a lot of people here inventing any excuse possible so they don't have to do the test and acknowledge Mr Shaw might be right.

Somebody does the switching gear for me, and I'll happily take the challenge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top