I don't know to what level, but level matching is already a standard in a blind test. We have organization such as IHEAC (Indonesian High End Club) here. The members are not technically as qualified as SY but level matching is well understood.
(1) If you don't hear any audible differences, why should you care what anybody else is hearing?
(2) If you are seeking objective information on DAC audible comparisons, just listen to the experienced people AND get experienced yourself so you will know more precisely. Unless you are trying to write a book about DAC audible comparisons...
Many people here are so critical when it comes to audibility information. But let me tell you that it is often not the audibility itself that is under question. If you know what I mean...
Ooops... I forgot what I wrote (on the other page). I thought you were questioning the BT.
Yes, you were right. Level unmatched, and sighted evaluation also
But the message was not for everyone. I was replying to Jon, specifically, who has some experience on the matter. For sharing purposes. He should be able to weight the value of the information.
Last edited:
Just curious, did you see them perform the level matching? If so, how closely did they match between components and what devices did they use?
I didn't, did I? I've been debating about comparison methods.
I did already.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. It's an audio forum so I figured that the subject is about the audibility. Please enlighten me on what you mean.
I think you are missing the whole point of doing blind tests: nobody is "smart" enough to be unbiased whether they swear by all they hold holy they are truthful. In fact, the folks who think they are smart enough or honest enough are cruisin' to be the worst victims of their own naivety.
Yes, Clever Hans Effect and all kinds of other false artefacts that get confused with measuring the accuracy of judgments.
B.
You must be thinking of someone other than me. I have never even hinted that testing shouldn't be double blind and have written how-to articles about it.
Yes, I often admire your comments and I *was* surprised.
But please explain what you meant by, "It is quite simple to determine whether or not you can hear the difference between A and B". I thought the point of blind testing is that you *believe* you hear the difference - often feeling clear as day and night - but it might only be an illusion no matter how strongly you feel about it and there's no way to know.
Ben
I guess I'm not following you at all here. But if you want to know some of the simple methods and some specific examples, Jan Didden was kind enough to make my article, "Testing One, Two, Three" available for free download from the Linear Audio website.
Sure. I just never wanted to be the one behind the curtain (I prefer to be part of the listeners).
Do you mean you have compared all the stuffs yourself, but with better controls in place, and that you have come to a conclusion that... all sound the same?
If so, may be it is not enough. We don't compare for the sake of having fun or curiousity. We seek for the best, subjectively, for our ears. Yes, I believe in my ears, otherwise I will pick the one with the best specification or measurement, which is much easier to do.
It is not preferable sitting in the subjectivists chair. Anybody without knowledge, experience and especially without good ears can sit in objectivist chair feeling superior being in the same camp with the knowledgeables. But not rarely these knowledgeable people have good ears themselves.
So, if you feel that you have been enlightened and understood the real issue behind this audibility thing, then stand up and explain the what and how so we can follow your path.
But please no focus on "expectation bias" and such, because my kids know that already
What I mean is... there are a lot to discuss/learn if curiosity is the name of the game.+1
Blind test is not about good or bad faith, smartness or any skills...
it's only a way to isolate variables (in that case: human senses/brain biases).
That's a proven scientific method that is widely used in the multi-billion pharmaceutical industry for decades. An industry much more serious, analyzed and controlled as the Hifi industry could ever be.
obviously level match is always be done and is nothing new or special, or even worth mentioning
That's what you think. You must not have encountered so many of those who think level matching is done by using their ears or putting the volume dial at the same spot. Or how about those who claim that the difference is night and day that no level matching is necessary.
Rather a lot of PCB modules... I presume modules can be swapped to create different configurations... How many layers are the PCBs?
My eyes were drawn to the left hand side and I have to wonder about creepage and clearance, there is a lot of board space I prefer to see a nice wide clear are between the HV side and the SELV section.
My eyes were drawn to the left hand side and I have to wonder about creepage and clearance, there is a lot of board space I prefer to see a nice wide clear are between the HV side and the SELV section.
When you tell others 'they are wrong' it automatically implies you know what 'right'is!
A few numbers and graphs on a sheet of paper is not the whole story.
If the damn thing doesn't sound as good as another, but has better measurements (that we can currently perform) means peanuts.
BTW 'Sounding Good' is psychological, personal, emotional - that's what the equipment should have been designed for, and is most successful cases, is.
If I wanted a lab or test equipment, I buy one.
Now go find a crafty way of rubbishing that argument or say something sarcastic, or ridicule or something else juvenile.
There's been a lot of that going on.
True, but nothing to do with high fidelity sound reproduction. Here the aim is not to 'sound good' but to sound like the original performance. A quite different aim, which may lead to quite different techniques.KenTajalli said:
Even the definition of 'success' is different: to one it is selling a lot of kit or being read by a lot of people; to the other it is being indistinguishable from the original sound (or as close as the state of the art will allow).
This fundamental confusion underlies most of the arguments on this forum. The rest are mainly various forms of Fourier, Shannon or Kirchoff denying.
There are so many variables in that chain, the playback equipment (itself made of a chain) can not ever achieve that goal, best compromise is to sound 'good' most of the times.
Clarification: 'success' as I meant it, is for sound quality achievement compared to price, being confirmed by many listeners.
I suggest the confusion is that some argue that 'common measured results' is everything.
Some others (me included) argue that good 'measured results' are the groundworks on to which an equipment must be build upon, but it surely isn't the whole story.
What we measure for is based on 'what we know today' - good and fair, let's do that, but to believe there is nothing else is childish. There are other 'measurements' that are not 'common', so reviewers do not look for them, and some manufacturers do not bother either.
When CD's first came out, not many were measuring (or publishing) jitter, low-level linearity, effects of dither . . . measurement results, they simply measured them as you would measure analogue equipments, i.e. distortion levels, noise levels etc. - which was fine, but was it the whole story.
We are getting better at measuring, but haven't perfected it yet.
NO. The goal of hifi is to sound of nothing (to quote Bruno Putzys). If your goal is to sound 'good' or 'nice' then your goal is not HiFi. And if you admit that no one will argue with you.