haha, no.
I was simply pointing to the fact that people don't change their minds easily or instantly when (newly) convinced about something.
Even if you know something is real and is true, it doesn't mean you're ready to change everything based on that. It may take time or it may require something else to process it. Or it may never come, even though you know it's real and true.
Earlier, someone mentioned taking the blue pill, fully aware! That says it all.
If you plunge your head deep into the sand... and feel it warm and comfy, you may want to stay there, right?
Pseudo science? People are very complex. Sometimes you may find a biological sensor works better than an engineered one. That's why we still use drug sniffing dogs. But, making, characterizing, and using biological sensors is not nearly as well modeled as most engineered sensors. By all means use engineered sensors when possible. When it is necessary to measure humans, to use them as sensors, or otherwise as experimental platforms, it gets messy. Dealing with it may require scientists some discomfort because it can be hard and complicated. Too bad, get over it, would be my point of view. If it has to be done, the best way to do it is still to apply the scientific method as much as possible, while understanding that scientists are not immune to "emotion/ego/human" effects themselves (although ego is something of an antiquated concept, maybe a good time to do some catching up).
I understand, and you are right to be skeptical. It's a very good habit, in fact.
That's why i won't knock on the nail and brag about my background/experience/seriousness involved in the tests i'm doing, and shown on that discussion board, but rather welcome anyone who would like to duplicate my tests. It might lead to different outcomes, who knows? But then again, i will require to be convinced about their seriousness
Psychology certainly isn't a what I would call 'psuedo-science'. Advertising for instance plays on all that and there is a reason it's a lucrative business - it works. It's a little out of scope for a technical/engineering discussion.
I'd be curious how much looks play into things. If I give a friend a well engineered amp in a crummy looking case is s/he going to think it sounds worse than the slick looking one? How about pretty cables? I'm going to bet that's the case but would be interested in knowing more details on what 'sounds' better to who. (is my grandpa going to think the wood panels sound better, is my nephew going to think wood panels sound worse?)
Anyone know of any studies that looked at this?
Hi Jon
so which Fiio dac did you use?
If they are that cheap its not too much of a investment to buy one to test!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
... damn. 19.99$...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Interesting discussion. I'm very much in the objectivist camp myself, and I think blind testing is important. Nevertheless, I do harbor some suspicions that blind testing might make testees blind to objective differences that might be perceived under other circumstances.
But blind tests in audio have revealed some things, at least, as to what the most perceivable differences are:
1. Loudspeakers - by far the most important part in the chain. Lots of blind testing shows perceived differences.
2. Amplifiers - a few blind tests show perceived differences, and many others do not
3. DACs - no blind tests I know of have shown perceived differences
4. CABLES etc - no blind tests have shown perceived differences
All of this doesn't mean that there can never be audible differences between dacs, or even more with amplifiers. I do believe that there might be subtle differences between amps (and maybe dacs) that one perceives more easily wih relaxed listening over time. Perhaps. I might be mistaken. But what I do believe it shows is what the most important things are.
So as for me, my rule of thumb is to spend about 100 times more on loudspeakers/transducers as on amps, dacs and cables. The only electronic part of the chain I spend some decent bucks on is DSP/crossover/eq, which is the most essential thing to get right in order for the trandsucers to do their job (in addition to the amp providing enough power).
But blind tests in audio have revealed some things, at least, as to what the most perceivable differences are:
1. Loudspeakers - by far the most important part in the chain. Lots of blind testing shows perceived differences.
2. Amplifiers - a few blind tests show perceived differences, and many others do not
3. DACs - no blind tests I know of have shown perceived differences
4. CABLES etc - no blind tests have shown perceived differences
All of this doesn't mean that there can never be audible differences between dacs, or even more with amplifiers. I do believe that there might be subtle differences between amps (and maybe dacs) that one perceives more easily wih relaxed listening over time. Perhaps. I might be mistaken. But what I do believe it shows is what the most important things are.
So as for me, my rule of thumb is to spend about 100 times more on loudspeakers/transducers as on amps, dacs and cables. The only electronic part of the chain I spend some decent bucks on is DSP/crossover/eq, which is the most essential thing to get right in order for the trandsucers to do their job (in addition to the amp providing enough power).
Which amp and which cabling?
Also: what did the 4 participants have to verify? Or just answer to "do you hear a difference?"?
Roberto
Also: what did the 4 participants have to verify? Or just answer to "do you hear a difference?"?
Roberto
That blind test was long due, it's now done.
Started with a 30$ unit (Fiio) against a 3000$ one (Forssell) and once SPL-matched (massive gain difference), no one could tell the difference in a ABX test.
Then, we switched to a different set-up, using a pair of B&W CM9 speakers and the Forssell against a Eximus DP1 (3500$ or so). Same result: impossible to spot them in a ABX.
We were only 4 participants, but regardless it didn't feel like day & night difference to start with... ''Eyes opened'' we FELT differences, but couldn't prove it in the ABX.
Cables, amplifiers, Lossy v.s. Lossless/HD, EQ'd mid drivers, DAC... Nope. Nothing is passing a ABX blind test.
I'm pretty sure, now, that the human auditory capacities are very, very, overestimated.
The good news is: we can probably save a LOT of money.
In reply to the two bolded quotes in your post:
- this guy did a number of similar blind tests to the o/p here - got some people together to listen sighted & blind to various DACs. He did this over the course of a year with different people & different DACs & it was only on the 4th meet up that he (they) identified differences between DACs. Why? Because, according to him, a new member to the group was able to point out what to listen for & they mostly all could hear differences sighted & blind.
DBO IV: Mo-Fo (South) (Saturday, January 10, 2015) | Page 10 | pink fish media
Last edited:
The results of a blind-test alone, doesn't say much because it all depends on the actual test: it is possible to make a blind test and "prove" that a $10 device sounds the same as a $10,000 one. Then make another test and reverse the result by exposing all the cheap device's weaknesses.
This is a lesson I've learned after designing several image/video tests: in order to uncover the subtle differences, you need to drive the subjects to their limits -that applies to everything, from car engines to electronics, to humans. Because in idle, everything works almost the same.
So it is necessary to design the tests so that they will focus on exposing their weaknesses in a way that a person can confidently perceive.
In other words, random music is not enough. It will require either a collage of carefully selected music parts, or for the ultimate control, synthesized sounds designed specifically to drive the DACs to their limits. Someone inclined in creating custom synth sounds from ground zero along with someone knowledgeable on acoustics and DAC technology for both DACs would be able to make the best tests possible.
After the success of the blind tests with artificial sounds, the criteria to seek the proper music parts will be crystal clear, and you could repeat those tests with just music.
Also, the actual process should be well designed and completely emotionally neutral.
This is a lesson I've learned after designing several image/video tests: in order to uncover the subtle differences, you need to drive the subjects to their limits -that applies to everything, from car engines to electronics, to humans. Because in idle, everything works almost the same.
So it is necessary to design the tests so that they will focus on exposing their weaknesses in a way that a person can confidently perceive.
In other words, random music is not enough. It will require either a collage of carefully selected music parts, or for the ultimate control, synthesized sounds designed specifically to drive the DACs to their limits. Someone inclined in creating custom synth sounds from ground zero along with someone knowledgeable on acoustics and DAC technology for both DACs would be able to make the best tests possible.
After the success of the blind tests with artificial sounds, the criteria to seek the proper music parts will be crystal clear, and you could repeat those tests with just music.
Also, the actual process should be well designed and completely emotionally neutral.
Last edited:
As I said, the test is not "same" or "different" - it is "probably indistinguishable" or "probably distinguishable" on that day using that auxiliary equipment in that electromagnetic environment with those listeners. Results either way cannot be used for a general statement. However, if repeated tests show similar results and those results match what might be expected from known physics and psychoacoustics then we may approach consensus among those who actually seek knowledge rather than affirmation.planet10 said:
I can only assume your exaggeration was an attempt at dramatic effect. There are good reasons why speakers and turntables might be expected to sound different, and equally good reasons why cables might be expected to sound the same. Amps and DACs might be expected to fall somewhere in between, depending on design decisions. Curiously, ears-only tests seem to confirm this.wushuliu said:
More drama?
As I understand it, the claim made is that a particular test showed indistinguishability. Other listeners in another test might hear differences, or they might not.
If differences are so small that only a minority can hear them under conditions of high concentration then they are of little consequence. In reality I think we are mainly talking about differences which are so small that almost nobody can hear them 'ears-only', and apparent 'success' at distinguishing relies mainly on peripheral issues such as noise and ABX-box clicks - as is sometimes admitted.Markw4 said:
The result of a blind test can't be measured on a one-dimensional scale (worse/better) but rather on multiple quite subjective scales. How do you measure terms like punch, slam, spatiousness, feeling of presence, tiring after extended listening, etc.?
Also a DAC is a combination of digital and analog circuitry; the digital part could be excellent and the analog part poor, or vice versa.
Also a DAC is a combination of digital and analog circuitry; the digital part could be excellent and the analog part poor, or vice versa.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.