Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever
DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th January 2018, 05:03 PM   #1461
Turbowatch2 is offline Turbowatch2  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern germany
How does this fit into the thread starters problem of beeing unable to spot differences compared to his high end Dac? Is his 3000$ dac junk?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th January 2018, 05:17 PM   #1462
Markw4 is offline Markw4  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbowatch2 View Post
How does this fit into the thread starters problem of beeing unable to spot differences compared to his high end Dac? Is his 3000$ dac junk?
Originally, there were four people who couldn't hear any difference. It can happen. Four people is a very small sample to represent all the billions of people in the world. There are other people who can hear some difference between DACs. It turns out whether or not someone hears a difference or not has little to do with ears and much more to do with how some of the aural processing in their brains happens to be wired. For people who do hear some difference, it can be nice to have somebody explain that a particular sound effect is caused by jitter. That's all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2018, 05:04 AM   #1463
Mike Fox is offline Mike Fox  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
First off it looks like a great deal of effort went into designing, conducting and reporting the tests and I applaud the effort. That results showed no difference is an important indication of how careful one must be in designing a test so that results indicating the sensitivity of test are also reported. In the future such tests could, if administered with greater thoroughness might help build a more comprehensive understanding of the various necessary test controls, sensitivity, and documentation for reproduce-ability and improvement.
From the comfort of an armchair here are my suggestions:
1. determine the background noise and other ambient factors of the test environment (noise level, power spectrum, ambient temp, humidity, altitude, light level, light temp, chair type, (who knows what factors influence perception?)
2. determine the acoustic path, impulse response, for each speaker to the listening position.
3. As part of the listening test have prepared the same audio with various impairments to various degree (Noise, harmonic distortion, inter mod distortion) so that the ABX test is applied between the various impairments and DUTs. Something similar is done for double blind vocoder testing where the Harvard sentences are encoded, and the identical set is distorted with additive noise at various levels and listeners indicate perceived quality between the original source, original source + calibrated noise level, and encoded source.

Conducting such tests is a huge effort! However the results would allow you to state exactly what level of SNR, THD, TIM your listeners could detect in the test environment. For example you found nobody could discern >1%THD from any DAC, but could discern >2% THD with 90% confidence with DAC 1 but only >4%THD from DAC 2 you just might be able to say DAC 1 is better than DAC 2. However if nobody could discern < 5% it might be that the test conditions were insufficiently sensitive or your human sample was.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2018, 05:21 PM   #1464
QAMAtt is offline QAMAtt
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakob2 View Post
Obviously in reality it is never that simple.
As said above, you seem to be unwilling to accept Clark´s and Frindle´s reports as valid numbers (due to missing detailed information) while you won´t get much more information by your test/bet proposals.
Sorry, I got very busy over the holidays.

My issue isn't that Clark and Frindle were lacking enormous details. My issue was that you portrayed them, IMO, as a bit more definitive. And then upon reading the actual papers, there was no meat there.

Which goes back to my original point: The science here is poor (something you didn't really refute).

Quote:
No, although Clark´s article was published in the peer reviewed JAES he did not described the experiments in detail, just reported what was found and supplied a graph with various conditions of level differences like broadband, 3 octaves wide and so on.
But peer review wouldn't accept a statement such as Clark's without supporting evidence. Clark's statement, when he made it, wasn't widely known and didn't cover the methodology. And it's still suspect today, nor has it be replicated. Thus, how did it get through peer review? Peer review, by design, would reject new and novel statements of fact without supporting data.
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2018, 05:34 PM   #1465
Markw4 is offline Markw4  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Much old auditory research is suspect, at least in some ways. Almost none of it provides sufficient information for accurate replication. Most of it was also done with small numbers of subjects and apparently no, or close to no, efforts were made to identify particularly talented/skilled listeners.

For example, if you test 200 hundred people, perhaps more than some aural research, suppose you have one person in the group that is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000. Are you going to discard that person's results as an outlier or investigate? If you are interested in average people, the decision is easy.

Also, if one were to say that people that are in the top .1% or greater are so rare as to be negligible, that't not necessarily so in a audio forum. One reason some people may be attracted to an interest in audio is that they are very acute listeners. We just don't know. There is a lot that could be and should be studied, but no funding for it so it doesn't happen.

Last edited by Markw4; 16th January 2018 at 05:36 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2018, 11:21 AM   #1466
DrDyna is offline DrDyna  United States
diyAudio Member
 
DrDyna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
The part I like the most is how a great number of audiophiles will sit around and bloviate about a whole host of apparently obvious sonic attributes, but when you cover their eyes and the magic abilities vanish, suddenly, the evidence requirement shoots up by 10 orders of magnitude, and we end up 150 pages deep, chasing white papers.

The ABX isn't meant to determine if 2 DUTs are the same, and it's not supposed to, it's only meant to determine if the guy who claims his thing has silky smooth treble can even point to it when he can't see that it's in use.

It doesn't need to be "the same", it only needs to show if an audible impression remains once bias is subtracted, and if the original claim doesn't need to stand up to scrutiny, neither does the test.

If we put as much effort into doing listening tests as some people seem to want to spend trying to tear them apart, or gaslight other people with language technicalities, we'd all be a lot smarter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2018, 11:44 AM   #1467
Markw4 is offline Markw4  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDyna View Post
The part I like the most is how a great number of audiophiles will sit around and bloviate about a whole host of apparently obvious sonic attributes, but when you cover their eyes and the magic abilities vanish,
Perhaps helpful to avoid trouble with the moderators if one reviews the rules from time to time.

THE RULES

NOT ALLOWED:

Disruptive behavior of any sort, including offensive language, trolling, threadjacking, insults, intimidation, harassment or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior. (Notes 1 & 3)
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2018, 12:09 PM   #1468
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
I had to Google "bloviate". I think it is a reasonable description of what happens part of the time on most forums.

To suggest that golden ears often lose their powers when decoupled from golden eyes is hardly insulting, but merely a statement of experimental fact. People are still arguing about what is the mechanism for this loss of power, so the loss of power is not really disputed. The favoured explanation among golden ears themselves is 'test stress' or just 'bad tests'.

Those of us lacking golden ears do not wave the forum rules in the air when we are accused of being deaf, stupid or poor.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2018, 12:18 PM   #1469
DrDyna is offline DrDyna  United States
diyAudio Member
 
DrDyna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markw4 View Post
Perhaps helpful to avoid trouble with the moderators if one reviews the rules from time to time.

THE RULES

NOT ALLOWED:

Disruptive behavior of any sort, including offensive language, trolling, threadjacking, insults, intimidation, harassment or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior. (Notes 1 & 3)
I didn't insult you, you chose to associate yourself with what I said.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2018, 12:21 PM   #1470
DrDyna is offline DrDyna  United States
diyAudio Member
 
DrDyna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
I had to Google "bloviate". I think it is a reasonable description of what happens part of the time on most forums.
lol, sorry, I only learned that word myself a couple of years ago, and the only reason I remembered it is because of how appropriate it is to describe some of the things that go on in audio circles.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoeverHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will a small cap value difference be audible? jb0194 Multi-Way 2 8th February 2012 05:39 PM
Audible difference between DTS and Dolby? arjscott Everything Else 3 1st February 2007 12:33 PM
Which caps make the most audible difference? TDWesty Solid State 5 31st January 2007 05:49 PM
BrianGT Basic v/s Premium - any audible difference ? percy Chip Amps 1 4th September 2004 03:18 PM
RC Tolerance -- audible difference r_s_dhar Analogue Source 6 11th August 2003 07:47 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki