Andre Visser said:
I have never matched levels on anything I've compared, nor have I measured FR or clipping. Please correct me as I'm assuming, but you don't routinely either? The big money question for us is, if we did, would we hear as much difference, perhaps even none?
Maybe I will have some more work to do...
cuibono said:
Do you know what you respond to?
This is what I wrote
Would my credibility increase in your eyes if I said it was the other way around?
I really don't get what you are after.
If you are afraid that I (or anyone else) make things up and find that hard to take I suggest you stay out of the boards.. ah stop meeting people in real life as well... you know you can't trust anyone anyhow..
If you did read all of my posts in this thread (which seems a smart thing to do if you go on to critisize me) you will see that I have said that I do not have any papers or articles at hand, but I know that this can be found at Swedish librarys. However with the attitude some in this thread have I don't feel like spending hours collecting material just to satisfy you/them.
Besides this, I did link to an article that backed up what I was talking about earlier so again I don't understand what you are talking about or what you are after. But OTOH if you think my written words are lies, then written words in an article may be lies as well.. it's better not to trust people right?
In the end it's up to you to educate yourself and if you want other to assist and help with that it may be wise to have an open mind and a good attitude.
/Peter
cuibono said:
SY, do you have to be coy?
Yes, it's my nature.
I'll give you one possibility. Suppose I have two boxes, call them amp A and amp B, both of which are "blameless" in an ABX test but differ acording to some audiophile criteria. I set up a data logger inside each box which measures how long music is played through each one. I give the boxes to a listener to use at home (or wherever). Over time, I find that the listener tends to use box A more than box B. OK, fine, now let's give that pair to another listener, or recode the boxes and give them back to the original subject. Is the same amp listened to longer? After 10 trials, whether different listeners, repeats with the same listener, or some combination, we find that (despite the null detection of difference in the ABX) 9 times out of 10, the amp originally in box A gets significantly more listening time.
Would you call that a positive result? I would.
Bratislav said:
Oh, and that you know?
I have picked out mic-pres and CD-players/DAT's in blind tests and as I've mentioned earlier most amps tested by LTS has NOT passed the before/after bypass test.
I can tell you the poweramps I have tested in my home and at friends have been much easier to differentiate than the low level electronics.
/Peter
Pan said:
Peter, I didn't intend to chafe you, so please accept my apology. But you keep referring to results we have no access to, and without seeing them ourselves, what you have to say is anecdotal. Specifically, you keep referring to LTS studies showing detectable differences between components. If this is the article you referred to, first off, its doesn't stand up to scientific standards for published results, second it contradicts what you've been getting at.
janneman said:
Jan,
what about cases that have been labeled as very obvious ? Case in point, Quad 303 and 405 have been described as "laughable" more than once in this thread alone (and in some British press as well).
Surely, lack of extra perceptory clues should not matter in those cases ?
Clark's test also used some of the most extreme examples. I know that most Golden Ears would laugh at even a suggestion of comparing the Pioneer receiver to Levinson or Futterman. Those extreme cases should be rather impervious to "discomfort" a blind test causes, yet not one positive result was recorded.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.