This is a non resolved question yet. I don't believe in blind test, too much affected by emotional bias, in favour of long listening session, with step up and step down. To perform correctly this kind of test you must get or two identical devices with only one difference ( the object of comparison (very expansive but safe and reliable). In alternative, where possible, a fast change in the devices itself. In this case a fast change is really easy, so it'snt a great trouble.
So you feel sighted listening will be subject to less bias? Are you aware of ITU BS.1116?
Shure! Long listening time of acoustic music avoid any mental implication but above all is the down step that will give you the true response. It's easier understand worst difference when you return to previous state, if this one is inferior respect to the new one. If you don't note any difference or you feel the old solution better, obviously, the new solution is not valid. The secret is not only the long time of the test but also to keep the rest of the rig absolutely the same in both condition. Last but not least, It's fundamental the time of burn in of new components and the achievement of a good thermal stability, especially in the digital domain.
We're not talking about easily detectable impairments here.
IMHO subtle differences between these kinds of audio gears cannot be subject to this kind of procedures, as properly detecting them requires hours and hours of comparative sessions for each listener, let alone the recommendation for 20 listeners...
When we talk about subjective detection of better or worse sound from an hifi component, obviously no real objectivity can be attained... it's like judging a painting, or a song - considering, in addition, that no one really knows how the real recorded event was. We can judge a component sound as "more convincing", but i doubt we can judge it as "more correct".
I think we have to content ourselves with a list of subjectives impressions: looking for greater objectivity is a self-deception.
Audiodany has expressed his proper impression, so we have to respect it (we don't have reasons to think he judged in a simplistic or biased manner) and take it as is, evaluating how much it could correspond to our experiences.
BUT, if i have understood correctly, he didn't test Crystek vs new NDK SDA, so it's not what we are expecting.
Anyone else?
Last edited:
Have you actually read BS.1116? It is what professional broancasters, standards organisations and manufacturers use to detect "small impairments in audio systems". Yes, it talks about sufficient numbers of trained listeners. It addresses the most significant factor in the listening experience - expectation bias.
"Better" or "worse" are subjective preferences. "People can hear a difference" is an objective criteria.
audiodany said he has the rev III board which has the NDK SDA clocks on board so I think we got exactly what we were expecting.
Thanks @audiodany for the comparison.
Sure i did. So i think it doesn't fit 100% to our case.
THERE IS a difference, that is for sure. But it's not easily detectable nor large, that is for sure too...
So when we talk about "hearing" or "detecting", we go in such a subtle, personal and subjective field that even forcing this detection in a rigid testing procedure or environment can distort or bias the result. Even being involved in a judged test can do that.
Maybe - but honestly i'm not sure about this for everyone - listening at home in a well known environment, in perfect comfort and ease and without "testing pressure" could be more reliable for these subtle "detections" than standardized, rigid test procedures.
Maybe this is the reason why the results from these ITU industrial procedures sometimes don't conform 100% to people appreciation about the tested products.
Or you can think people are stupid or deaf, but i think that is a simplistic statement (even if sometimes correct
).This is my opinion.
Isn't he saying he didn't test SDA clocks vs. Crystek, using instead the new board only using the Crystek oscillator board?
Audiodany, are you talking about "regular" NDK clocks from older boards, aren't you?
Or are you talking about a new test with new clocks? I can't understand well...
Why not?
What makes you so sure?
That is kind of funny, as that is precisely the excuse a lot of people claiming paranormal powers tend to use. "It doesn't work when there are negative vibrations from sceptics interfering".
Unfortunately that doesn't help with the most significant effect - expectation bias.
Again, let's not confuse preference and ability to (demonstrably) being able to tell a difference (be it good or bad).
Or you can think people are stupid or deaf, but i think that is a simplistic statement (even if sometimes correct
I have definitely not implied either - the only simplistic and stupid thing would to be tests without controls for the most likely causes of perceived differences.
I explain it in the rest of the post
There are very subtle differences even between 2 Crystek clocks from the same batch, how could there be no difference between 2 different clocks manufactured by different manufacturers with different components and technologies? Differences are measurable, too, as you can see in many graphs from both manufacturers
Yes, life can be very "funny" for those who can't sight even the evident differences between statements like the one i posted and the one you mention...
Yes, this surely is a risk (but not a certainty: how do you know Audiodanny has "expectations" about that?): that's why i said i cannot be sure for everyone. But what i wanted to state is that even those ITU procedures do carry a bias risk.
I'm not confusing about that, that is clear for me, i'm not a kid
This is your opinion and of course we have to respect it. But it's not Absolute Truth for all cases, IMHO.
More, noone is due to prove anything to anyone here: this is a free forum for enthusiasts, not a process. Maybe you should take this thread in a more relaxed mood... Fascism has been defeated a long time ago, thankfully.
More, i'm not saying that NDK SDA are better or worse than Crystek clocks: we are just trying to get some impressions from other users. This would be much easier and faster without you attacking other users opinions, something that nobody here is entitled to do. Why should we waste so much time and fill this thread again with endless and useless discussions that cannot come to a resolution?
Last edited:
And I countered the points in the rest of your post.
Minor tolerances don't necessarily translate into audible differences. Not everything matters. The resistors in your amp are have a 1% or 5% tolerance, the electrolytic capacitors in the power supply are at least +-10%. Does that make an *audible* difference?
I don't *know*, but that is the point - we also don't know there aren't any expectations (not all of them concious).
No, opinions are indeed not truths. That is why we have to be evidence-based.
Ever heard of Gowdwin's Law?
I am not attacking anyone - I am simply trying to find out the facts. Isn't that why we are here? To learn. Not just reinforce our belief system. I think you are not familiar with academic and scientific discourse. The basis of scientific knowledge is questioning. If you get a chance to go and gear someone defend their Ph.D. thesis, I think it would be an educating experience for you.
to invoke the scientific criterion in terms of perception is simply a nonsense. In any case, a statisk criterion can never be used: how many people give a positive or negative judgment on two objects introduced into a complex system. But even this does not have a personal value. each must form his own perceptual judgment in solitude.
what you need to learn is knowing how to decide for yourself. take note of other judgments and then form your own with the only caution to be aware that psychology reigns supreme and each person has his own.
On the topic Crystek against NDK I already formed my judgment: the difference in listening is irrelevant to me in PCM. In DSD I do not make judgments because I do not use digital processes in dsd.
what you need to learn is knowing how to decide for yourself. take note of other judgments and then form your own with the only caution to be aware that psychology reigns supreme and each person has his own.
On the topic Crystek against NDK I already formed my judgment: the difference in listening is irrelevant to me in PCM. In DSD I do not make judgments because I do not use digital processes in dsd.
The unfortunate fact is that audio (the reproduction of recorded sound) is technology. Technology is applied science.
Not sure what you mean - DSD is digital.
For a better explication:
1) Yes, I've compared new REv.III with and without Crystek and with them it sounds better
2) difference is subtle but clearly perceivable and it's not only system dipendent but also listener dipendent, so each one could judge if the money to spend for board and Crystek worth it or not.
3) Great difference is on a best resolution of micro informations (timbrinc and ambience) with Crystek but a lot of people has'nt interest in this particular feature.
4) difference is perceivable at the same level with PCM as DSD, no difference at all.
1) Yes, I've compared new REv.III with and without Crystek and with them it sounds better
2) difference is subtle but clearly perceivable and it's not only system dipendent but also listener dipendent, so each one could judge if the money to spend for board and Crystek worth it or not.
3) Great difference is on a best resolution of micro informations (timbrinc and ambience) with Crystek but a lot of people has'nt interest in this particular feature.
4) difference is perceivable at the same level with PCM as DSD, no difference at all.
Thanks, that's exactly the kind of opinions that i want to read in this thread, instead of useless pseudo-scientific polemic
Last edited:
It think that would be taken as an insult by the people who do research in the pretty sophisticated sciences of human physiology and perception.
Thanks, that's exactly the kind of opinions that i want to read in this thread, instead of useless pseudo-scientific polemic
I totally get that you prefer to read things that reinforce your beliefs - it is very human, and we are all subject to it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.