Better said maybe (sorry for my english) - The better is the equipment, the better it can be heard, how bad the recordings are.
Usually I care about MUSIC, not about the sound. But, the sound must be so good, so that it do not disturb the music.
I made an extensive analysis of many samples of recordings in various HD formats and CDs as well and the results were horrible frequently. It seems the best quality can be found among the HD digital transfers of analog originals (it means from original tapes to SACD mostly). And, at some vinyls, of course. The problem isn't the digital technology itself, but the quality of the work of people involved.
Hi John,
You are not alone in this. For me and for some other audio enthusiasts DBX tests are utterly meaningless.
At least many of those tests that followed are basically flawed. When in such tests people cannot distinguish between two amps with considerable, meaningful and clearly measure differences, like between SS and tube power amps – it is a clear indication that those tests are flawed. The reasons for those flaws are irrelevant to the present discussion.
For any test to be valid by scientific criteria, it has to be proven to produce positive results when there are big and meaningful differences. No DBX test that I know of proved to be valid on big and meaningful differences. The mere assumption that because of some possible psychological effects were neutralized, the test must be valid – is unproved and undemonstrated assumption.
Again, you are not alone here.
Since for most audio enthusiasts the home sound setup serves as a mean to enjoy listening to reproduced music, under ordinary listening conditions – whatever may be more or less beneficial towards the intended end (enjoying listening to reproduced music) can be found only, or mostly, under the ordinary listening conditions.
Hi Richard,
Indeed.
Measured distortion, especially those usually published by manufacturers, like THD in IMD, in themselves, have nothing to do with the degree to which the reproduced music will sound with more realism, or more enjoyable (more 'musical', as some describe it).
It is my own aim and the aim of some other audio enthusiast I know of, that the sound setup will sound with greatest possible degree of realism (or that the setup will be as much 'musical' as possible) – at a given budget. DBT and ABX utterly fail to indicate anything about the degree of realism, or 'musicality' of a sound setup.
They're not supposed to, so they "fail" in the same sense that they "fail" to cure cancer or stop rockets falling on your head. All they are meant to do is answer questions of the sort, "Can you/anyone hear the difference between A and B?" And if you can, you can, and if you can't, you can't.
Oh yes, they also "fail" to prevent whining and excuse-making from people who don't like what the results are.
When in many such tests people cannot recognize differences between SS and tube power amps, with large, meaningful and measured differences – those tests were proven to be invalid in enabling detecting any differences at all.
Assuming that a certain test is valid without proving it's validity, is very far away from any scientific approach and methodology.
If 'different and better sound" is the goal, excuse-making is certainly an easier path than actual design validation. If "marketing to rich folks" is the goal, you and your clients have done an enviable job.
As I've noted before, unlike many products from many high-end designers, your stuff actually DOES sound neutral and works well, so hat's off to you for a fine job of balancing fashion market necessities with delivering solid, reliable product.
As I've noted before, unlike many products from many high-end designers, your stuff actually DOES sound neutral and works well, so hat's off to you for a fine job of balancing fashion market necessities with delivering solid, reliable product.
If frequency response, level, and (in a gross sense) distortion/noise and stability, differ, even very slightly, people are readily able to discern differences, so you're starting with a false premise.
If you can't trust your ears on their own, that's your choice. I trust mine and don't spend much time or effort worrying about eyes, ego, or faith.
Hi John,
The critics and cynical criticize, while designers design.
I haven’t heard of any widely appreciated High End audio designer who got there, relying only on measurements and DBT.
Is it in theory, or is it proved in practice?
It isn't true for all DBT, it isn't true to some DBT I know of.
I do trust my ears on their own, it is the only thing I trust when it comes to choosing gear for my audio setup. That I trust my ears doesn't mean that I trust blindly any DBT out there. I do know for a fact that I do hear what I hear, sighted and blind alike. DBT have nothing to do with trusting my ears.
Ah the old DBX boogeyman, DBT does not exclude taking it home and get comfortable listening to your favorite music, just no peeking or other clue as to which one it is.
Never happen.
In practice. Much literature. If you're curious, a bit of searching will turn up plenty. (Don't bother asking me to do your legwork for you)
Certainly cumbersome, but not impossible. Seems like that's the only method that everybody will trust.
Thanks,
Chris
Literature is of little use, since some tests may be valid, while others may be invalid. The exact and detailed procedure of the test may determine its' validity. Any test taken, its' validity should be verified first, prior to drawing any conclusions from it.
Have you verified yourself those DBT you are holding?
It's too difficult for me. IF I missed something, THEN you would say that I did NOT run a legitimate double blind test. YET, I have seen no standard procedure that I could rely on, and I read just about everything. About 10 years ago JJ was criticizing typical double blind tests, I asked HIM for the protocol, and he said it was a company trade secret! '-)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.