Subtracting one from the other would be interesting, but it would still be a pointless waste of time to debate the possible audibility.
That was really the point I was trying to make. This debate can go on forever without any conclusion.
Have a look at this video & realize that it applies to audio perception, just as much as it applies to visual perception. YouTube
Now consider what is happening in a blind ABX test - you hear A - no, you hear the part of it are you focusing on? Now play B with the same element being focused on. Now play X - is X actually A or is it B? There is nothing to latch onto that we can hear as different between A & B. Did we focus on the wrong element in the sound clip? Try again with a different element. How many elements are we going to try before boredom sets in or giving up?
It's a mistaken belief that differences in sound between two clips/two devices will suddenly pop into consciousness & denies all that is known about auditory perception.
Not realizing this & taking it into account in blind ABX testing is at the least, mistaken & at the worst, disingenuous
Now consider what is happening in a blind ABX test - you hear A - no, you hear the part of it are you focusing on? Now play B with the same element being focused on. Now play X - is X actually A or is it B? There is nothing to latch onto that we can hear as different between A & B. Did we focus on the wrong element in the sound clip? Try again with a different element. How many elements are we going to try before boredom sets in or giving up?
It's a mistaken belief that differences in sound between two clips/two devices will suddenly pop into consciousness & denies all that is known about auditory perception.
Not realizing this & taking it into account in blind ABX testing is at the least, mistaken & at the worst, disingenuous
Last edited:
I'm happy that you've found a super-cheap solution which meets your needs
It is quite funny that equipment that delivers the emotional goods is quite expensive.
Non sighted listening often removes the emotional goods
, and that is bad news.Not saying that is always the case though.
No, I would proffer that it is blind tests like ABX that result in this outcome because of the focused attentional listening that is required for the test.It is quite funny that equipment that delivers the emotional goods is quite expensive.
Non sighted listening often removes the emotional goods
Not saying that is always the case though.
Blind tests which are preference tests do not tend to lose such emotional effects as the listening is often not skewed by the analytic style listening of ABX tests
Last edited:
I don't know enough about the implementation of the exercise to conclude anything at all. I wonder, for example, if the subjects were tested together, at the same time. If so, I would worry about participants affecting each other’s responses during the exercise.
The OP has undertaken this sort of exercise multiple times before. He started a thread outlining his "Ultimate Blind Test" in August 2016, which was said to test an inexpensive system versus an expensive one. Before he began, he posted:
that's gonna be so much fun to organize, this test...
audiocopy of a whole boutique system, which will include so much bulls*** mumbo jumbo AT THE SAME TIME
They'll be like:
''What do you think went wrong ?''
- ...ehm.. i think the Shunyata power cable was not quite broke-in yet
''oh no, you didnt!? I told you, Berthold! 1000 hours minimum!''
- I'm truly sorry, Oliver, *sobbing* i failed, it's all my fault!! *sobbing*
'' You're a shame for Audiophilia, Berthold, a bloody shame!!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Are these the words of an unbiased scientist trying to discover and reveal truth?
Or, do they reflect a clear bias, one that he then confirms, to his great surprise, each time.
It would be fine if the OP limited his conclusions to the exercise he undertook. Unfortunately he is making broad generalizations based on it that are simply not possible given his approach.
I can’t accept his results as they simply don’t say what he claims they do. The OP has repeatedly gone on about his “snake oil” theory. He has performed multiple “tests” and each time has drawn conclusions that, unsurprisingly, are consistent with his “snake oil” theory, though he professes surprise, each time.
This is the opposite of advancing human knowledge. This is preaching a point of view with a veneer of “science”.
I guess it reflects the times.
Last edited:
It is from another thread, but seems relevant to the topic. It references a similar exercise undertaken by the OP.
Do you believe that it reveals a bias or not?
Jeeze, 3 grand for a common PCM179x (hybrid DS/R2R 18bit/6bit) burrbrown chip with standard op-amp outputs? Looks like a pro piece, money put toward reliability, rackmount, set it & forget it for 10years, just my 1st impression googling that dac.
Maybe those Dac's really do sound close enough to not give a ****!
More interesting DAC's are out there!
Just recently some of us got together and played with this:
YouTube
Could not be more different and interesting! Those (yggy,DSgungnir) and a nice raspberry pi dac, and a modded pi Dac. Source: a clean digital transport: (pi/Allo DigiONE)
I'll stay neutral on our favorite... that's not the point
Maybe those Dac's really do sound close enough to not give a ****!
More interesting DAC's are out there!
Just recently some of us got together and played with this:
YouTube
Could not be more different and interesting! Those (yggy,DSgungnir) and a nice raspberry pi dac, and a modded pi Dac. Source: a clean digital transport: (pi/Allo DigiONE)
I'll stay neutral on our favorite... that's not the point
Last edited:
I think that its good that the little Fiio DAC is not a limiting factor within the system used for the blind test. If nothing else puts a bit of perspective in the context of what to budget for on a DAC when building an audio system.
I'm on a bit of a DAC journey of my own at the moment.
I built a DIY dac based on a AK4396 with as many tweeks as I could fit like LME4970 op amps, Quasimodo snubbers, & 5 separate 2 stage voltage regulators, and it sounds so much better than my old Arcam CD72 cd player. That was a result given I built the whole thing for less than £50. I think that the main diiferences there are the DAC's used, and all the knowlege gleaned from DIYAudio of course!
At the moment I,m listening to a Chord 2Qute which is £999 in the UK.
It does not have a normal DAC chip instead it uses a FPGA
It definitely special but I'm trying to avoid the hype and see how satisfying it is to use on a day to day basis. At the moment I think I need to make a linear PSU for it, so that I don't get the RF from the standard switchmode PSU in the system. The deep bass from the standard Chord setup is not as good as my homebrew DAC. But it has very good stereo and I dont imagine it wil be a limiting factor, at least for a few years....
Spec Comparisons.
SNR - Fiio 95db - Chord -119db
Crosstalk - Fiio 86db - Chord 126db
Distortion - Fiio 0.008% Chord 0.0003%
These are the headline figues from the manufacturers, but in the context of system performance the spec given for the Fiio does not seem a limiting factor for many systems.
I think I might buy a Fiio DAC to check it out. If it's that good there are plenty of older audio systems that could be given a cheap boost for very little money.
No I don't think I am deluded! I have my family who don't care about the hype or the details but enjoy the music, what else matters?
I'm on a bit of a DAC journey of my own at the moment.
I built a DIY dac based on a AK4396 with as many tweeks as I could fit like LME4970 op amps, Quasimodo snubbers, & 5 separate 2 stage voltage regulators, and it sounds so much better than my old Arcam CD72 cd player. That was a result given I built the whole thing for less than £50. I think that the main diiferences there are the DAC's used, and all the knowlege gleaned from DIYAudio of course!
At the moment I,m listening to a Chord 2Qute which is £999 in the UK.
It does not have a normal DAC chip instead it uses a FPGA
It definitely special but I'm trying to avoid the hype and see how satisfying it is to use on a day to day basis. At the moment I think I need to make a linear PSU for it, so that I don't get the RF from the standard switchmode PSU in the system. The deep bass from the standard Chord setup is not as good as my homebrew DAC. But it has very good stereo and I dont imagine it wil be a limiting factor, at least for a few years....
Spec Comparisons.
SNR - Fiio 95db - Chord -119db
Crosstalk - Fiio 86db - Chord 126db
Distortion - Fiio 0.008% Chord 0.0003%
These are the headline figues from the manufacturers, but in the context of system performance the spec given for the Fiio does not seem a limiting factor for many systems.
I think I might buy a Fiio DAC to check it out. If it's that good there are plenty of older audio systems that could be given a cheap boost for very little money.
No I don't think I am deluded! I have my family who don't care about the hype or the details but enjoy the music, what else matters?
I've read and played along with one or two of Jon's fine () threads because usually they are quite amusing, he can get tiresome like a petulant child, but he also manages to provoke some interesting responses. I don't think he takes himself too seriously (I certainly don't) and I find it almost incredible when people get worked up by his language and manner, like I said, he just seems a bit mad to me
) threads because usually they are quite amusing, he can get tiresome like a petulant child, but he also manages to provoke some interesting responses. I don't think he takes himself too seriously (I certainly don't) and I find it almost incredible when people get worked up by his language and manner, like I said, he just seems a bit mad to me - Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.