Would normally post this in the snake oil thread, but seems to fit how OT things are here. To the Simple, Everything Appears Simple | Stereophile.com
Based on other comments by Atkinson, the ABX test in question is described in more detail in an origional document posted here: http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf
The facts show that Atkinson is making a false claim, because the ABX test results for the tests comparing SS and tubed amps (please see the tabular results for the tests involving the Futterman amp "Amplifier Listening Tests") show that a fair number of the listeners were responding accurately. Therefore, Atkinson's claim that "No one during this test heard a difference" is obviously false.
Last edited:
The cite article contains this statement:
"Rigorous blind testing, if it is to produce valid results, thus becomes a lengthy and time-consuming affair using listeners who are experienced and comfortable with the test procedure. Otherwise, the results of the test become randomized, hence meaningless."
First we have to deal with the fact that the statement contains the word rigorous, whose meaning is vague. My rigorous may not be your rigorous.
Then I fall back on a lecture about perceptual coding that I long ago delivered on a university campus, sponsored by the AES. During that lecture I demonstrated the use of ABX blind testing to hear the difference between some high bitrate MP3 files and the corresponding .WAV files. To the best of my knowlege none of them had ever done DBTs or ABX tests before. One or more students apparently got the hang pretty quickly as they were able to obtain perfect scores.
Anything that one reads in Stereophile publications about blind testing no doubt passes review by John Atkinson whose lack of comfort with blind testing is something that he seems to not make a secret of. Obviously, not much of an unbiased source, eh?
What does any of this have to do with resistors (the thread topic)? If there's data showing audibility of any resistor in a competently engineered circuit, let's see it. If there's data showing nonlinearities above any established audible threshold in a competently engineered circuit, let's see it.
Rehashing basic experimental methods for the non-benefit of a tiny niche of faith-based audiophiles is completely off topic, as well as useless.
Rehashing basic experimental methods for the non-benefit of a tiny niche of faith-based audiophiles is completely off topic, as well as useless.
The obvious snake oil mention would be the Uptone Audio regen device, which is a degenerate example of a USB concentrator with only one downstream port.
One might find at least 300 testimonials for it on the Computer Audiophile web site.
Please see post 1761 this thread, for about as good of a connection as one might hope for.
If only there was any such thing, other than the circa 1950s article about carbon composition resistors that has been mentioned.
I recall a post saying that this data "must exist" with the implication that this information might be sequestered because it is such a valuable trade secret.
I don't know if it was posted on this thread, but I recall recently seeing on DIYA a reprint reports of resistor blind listening tests with results that were below those generally accepted for statistical significance.
Last edited:
That's why I'm asking. I'm unaware of any, but someone else might know of one.
But this goes against the fact that at least couple of Audio designers* and their acolytes and a respected Audio magazine writer have clearly stated that resistors do have an effect on the sound quality... Are these views to be dismissed as unproven hearsay?
*Master Audio designers no less.
*Master Audio designers no less.
Well in this world there ins't science fact that the sound of resistor cannot hears ?
I'm wrong ?
How can you tell me that I cannot ??
I was having a little dig, revenge for the kicking I got by "Hells Acolytes" Gang, who rode into town and beat me mercilessly with their audiophile cables and exotic components for daring to question the words of a Master Audio Designer... I shall forever hold my self in shame and as punishment I am reading everything on Audiostream........
OK nicoch58 - I believe you; in fact I believe everything you say....absolutely everything
HI branco never write this , I only tell try at home ,test some resistor in diyaudio spirit.....
I did too at a Boston AES meeting, by memorizing the switching transients. I even got up and demonstrated by standing there and calling them out. I remember E. Brad Meyer being momentarily speechless.
Where can I buy this 'DIYaudio spirit'? And how long do you leave the resistors in the spirit?
I've never worked with Brad, so I don't know where he is at technically.
My setup had randomized switching transients. You could try to crack it the way you suggest, but that was a rabbit hole that would lead to random guessing.
This is the easiest way - others exist.
One invokes that science by having a setup with a noise level that is below the threshold of hearing.
Install the resistor under test, and if the noise level is still below the threshold of hearing, you've got the resistor of your dreams.
You listen to the music of your choosing in the system of your choosing and switch between two alternatives at the times of your choosing.
If your attempts to identify the devices under test turn out to be random guessing, what can you say for yourself?
You still need to watch out for DC levels on the devices being tested or the transient can be tied to A->B, B->A, etc. regardless of the sound of the actual switches.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.