I wonder what percent of professional equipment reviews are performed under "level-matched, controlled dual-blind ABX comparisons?" I will venture a guess at something like 0.01%. The only professional reviews that I know of that come close is UHF magazine. Amateur reviews are virtually nil. I assume that virtually EVERY review is just a "personal, subjective and unverified" opinion of what the reviewer heard in that system on that day.
Even if it was a level-matched, controlled dual-blind ABX comparison the conclusion would only apply to that system and possibly not at all to my system (my mileage might vary). It goes without saying.
Last edited:
I know it is time consuming to search through this thread but there have been several recommendations. You might get lucky though and get a quick answer. Otherwise, go searching.
- Galaxy Maggiorato (230mm x 230mm)
- cOz's Cables - Ncore Chassis
- SiliconRay RE2207-JRNC - James Romeyn RE2207-JRNC Enclosure for Ncore - Boards | Kits | Components | Modules | Tools (I use these; the misalignment of the Neutrik XLR mounting holes doesn't bother me)
- http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/190434-hypex-ncore-612.html#post3332998 - richardkrol of Hexateq seems to have a few left, and they are *gorgeous*.
Almost no equipment reviews (either in print or on the InterWeb) are capable of reviewing a component without first knowing:
a] Brand
b] Price point
c] Technology
d] Visual impression (especially true with speakers or turntables)
e] Consensus of other reviewer's and golden ear's.
Thanks, will look them up. When i first started to look i did find a closure with a power on and blue circle round button but do not fin them anymore...
WHat size is appropriate to mono´s/power amp?
WHat height recommended? Do the need holes in closure to be vented?
Let's not even start to discuss the level of the "professional" audiophile press
But yes, what you see in most places is just that, reviews. Sometimes with measurements, sometimes without. A review is a different thing from comparing if a certain change or difference is better or worse, or even audible at all.
Sure - but a controlled dual-blind ABX is not really a tool to evaluate your whole system, but instead means to more reliably answering questions like "does a nCore amp sound better when bridged", "are there audible differences between lossless file formats" or for comparing, let's say, linear vs. SMPS power supplies.
Let's not even start to discuss the level of the "professional" audiophile press
But yes, what you see in most places is just that, reviews. Sometimes with measurements, sometimes without. A review is a different thing from comparing if a certain change or difference is better or worse, or even audible at all.
Sure - but a controlled dual-blind ABX is not really a tool to evaluate your whole system, but instead means to more reliably answering questions like "does a nCore amp sound better when bridged", "are there audible differences between lossless file formats" or for comparing, let's say, linear vs. SMPS power supplies.
As always, unique system setup and test conditions as well as "ears" means no generalized truth or any other "objective" fact -other than stating exactly what happened and under what circumstances.
That is scientific method; not claiming anything outside what happened.
Anything else is interpretation and speculation -although that is also seen more than often by scientists and that is why we have double blind peer review processes to test reliability of claims.
Julf your question should instead be: "any double blind peer reviewed double blind level-matched ABX test?" -and of course remember to ask about the specific test conditions...
I think that ABX tests can be good for detecting certain types of differences, but not all. Remember that tests-setups are what produces test-results, not just what is tested
- My question is whether that type of test reveals what is really of concern or whether it just sidetracks things in a doomed attempt to reach "objectivity" on something that might not be able to be reduced to "objective truths"?...
But as I keep saying, it is a bit like democracy - a flawed idea, but better than the alternatives.
So how would you ensure the reports of audible differences aren't caused by expectation bias and other psycho-perceptual causes (assuming trivial technical things like level matching have been taken care of)?
Well, yes, and that leads into the eternal question of "hi-fi" vs. "audiophile" - do you want your system to reproduce the original signal as accurately as possible or do you want it to sound "good"? (And yes, I acknowledge that what is "original" is a hard question). A debate we won't be able to resolve.
I'm exhausted by those audiophiles non-senses, this confusion between engineering and instrument making, brain and hearing etc... Trying to find mysterious evils and believing in magic, even against the most obvious laws of physics. Measurements means nothing... blind tests are wrong...
An hifi equipment is supposed to be 'transparent'. If something is not *obvious* in an ABX test, you can neglect-it: who care what *you* produce in your imagination ?
Last edited:
Q1: I'd say different horses for different causes.
Q2: Well, no matter what music implies some sort of human sensory and perceptive/cognitive activity.
Audio IS psycho-perceptual. How would you remove that in ABX?
Sensory perception is just as much a prerequisite for cognition as it is cognition itself.
Expectation bias will always be part of how we decipher stimuli. Expect red wine and get cola = disgust. We can try to cheat or guide our perception however we want. For me good music reproduction is about guiding rather than cheating perception. How would you remove expectational bias without messing with the cognitive foundation of an event like ABX?
Trying to take these things apart raises just as many questions as it provides answers. The question is more about what you want to prove. That you can make someone say that they don't hear a difference in a specific experimental setup only proves something about your particular setup. Could you alter the setup and produce a different result? Most likely. -Nothing generalisable about audio nor human perception is proven. That's the actual fact!
Q3: I think that the "hifi vs audiophile" dichotomy is only useful to offend people. I prefer not to use it partly for that reason and partly because it doesn't explain anything valuable.
How can "faithful" reproduction not be about human sensory-perception-cognition? Low distortion figures can be very good, but for me the perceptual-characteristics of different "types" or "sources" of distortion is much more interesting and cannot alone be defined through scopes and non-human instruments -at least if the reference is "high perceived definition". You may neglect that and only go for "high measured definition" as reference, and neglect listening and its many, many cognitive facets as equally valid sources of reference, but thats your call.
I trust my senses and hope others trust theirs too and read anything on the internet with a good pragmatic pinch of salt
cheers,
How is that audiophile no-sense? I'm just trying to be equally pragmatic about all sources of information.
If something cannot be heard in situation A -does that necessarily mean that you will never be able to hear it in any other situation? -Are you for real on this? So if I can hear differences between cables in ABX it must be because I imagine it and if you make a crap setup where I can't you are thence right? Come on be just a tiny bit reflective on things that are more complicated than any can imagine...
I dont think that I am confusing these things. Moreover I think you are by what you just wrote...
Well. Cables makes a difference...by their lumped elements (resistance, reactance, capacitance) as a consequence of their geometry. Some want to make believe, in order to make profit, selling stupid cables for the price of your house, that there is some magic in it, like sound of metal, or effects of cryogenics, breaking etc...
Differences in the response curve can be noticed between cables measuring differently with loudspeakers witch had non flat impedance curves. Therefore, listening to cables differences is a non sens: work where is the defect, the impedance curve of your speakers, and the filters. the same two sets of cables will have opposite differences with two different sets of speakers/amps: Does-it make sens to say that one cable gives more treble ?
In the same spirit, your system will sound differently one day and an other, because the humidity in the air, or the temperature, or, may-be your personal mood. What the hell ? Did-it change you pleasure, listening to music ? It is like the color balance with the light.
ABX blind test is just a way to ensure we do not fool ourselves with our desires or believes. it does not change our earing ability, and what is not OBVIOUS does not matter.
I remove some important aspects of it - if you don't know if A or B is your "preferred" one, you are less likely to allow non-sound-related factors influence your decision.
Once again: Penn & Teller: The Truth About Bottled Water - the interesting parts starts at 4:00.
And how is that a fact? If that was the case, audio technology would still be a the level of putting together random components in an order determined by examining the guts of a frog and the phase of the moon.
Of course it is. But as an engineer I can only influence one part of it - the audible. The rest is up to marketing people
Well, I sincerely hope the people who design my gear trust more than just their senses.
No, just different
If you have two or more amps, the best way to use them is to replace the passive crossover in the speakers with an active one, and drive each speaker element with it's own amp.
Julf: Dude, this is way too definitive a statement. An active x-over will not always be better than a passive one. While I agree that an active has the potential to outperform a passive, it is not definitively so: many speakers these days have highly engineered passive crossovers, and doing better than the OE crossover with an active will require skills and measuring equipment which few people have. Also, many active cross overs will not allow the full measure of adjustment necessary to produce a "perfect" result.
It would be dangerous to suggest to people that they rip the x-over out of their Avalon, or Rockport speakers, and start expecting improved sound with a simple active and no real knowledge of x-over design.
Agree so far that ALL variables are considered. Excluding all but three on the cable side to instead point at other deficiencies I'd say is too speculative rather than factual at this point.
[/QUOTE]
In the same spirit, your system will sound differently one day and an other, because the humidity in the air, or the temperature, or, may-be your personal mood. What the hell ? Did-it change you pleasure, listening to music ? It is like the color balance with the light.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the point?
[/QUOTE]
ABX blind test is just a way to ensure we do not fool ourselves with our desires or believes. it does not change our earing ability, and what is not OBVIOUS does not matter.[/QUOTE]
I think you on one hand state that we easily cheat our selves through our senses as why we should do ABX to on the other hand underestimate how our senses work.
OK, so you acknowledge that our senses cheat us all too easily. So how do you suggest we make sure the differences we think we hear aren't caused by our senses cheating us?
And are you saying that the ABX framework restricts your senses so you can't hear the differences, and that is why the results wouldn't be valid?
No, but a well-executed active crossover will most probably be better than even a well-executed passive one.
Measuring equipment? I thought audiophiles didn't believe in those!
Dangerous? As in the speakers might explode? Or just dangerous to their wallets? How is that different from any other audiophile advice?
I remove some important aspects of it - if you don't know if A or B is your "preferred" one, you are less likely to allow non-sound-related factors influence your decision.
Once again: Penn & Teller: The Truth About Bottled Water - the interesting parts starts at 4:00.
And how is that a fact? If that was the case, audio technology would still be a the level of putting together random components in an order determined by examining the guts of a frog and the phase of the moon.
A: Why? I believe other factors have contributed too. Like "normal" critical listening, and measurements of course. But have we achieved absolute certainty through ABX? -NO and we never will about anything...
Luckily engineers don't need it to produce effects like better sounding and measuring gear...
Scientists never claim absolute anything -they know that they cant and instead state specifically the conditions under which they have backing for their claim. No minor detail BTW...
Of course it is. But as an engineer I can only influence one part of it - the audible. The rest is up to marketing people
Well, I sincerely hope the people who design my gear trust more than just their senses.
Agree on the last part, but I wouldn't agree I you would state that it has nothing to do with their senses -which I BTW don't think you have stated anywhere.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.