@DPH, if you really want to try to claim that this test is a "Gold Standard", I'd love to hear your argument.
Conflating forum ABX tests with anything scientific & then trying to argue that I am irrational would seem rather ironic.
Yes, Jakob is a mine of information about blind testing & other areas - he has spelled out the pitfalls in blind testing many times & generally agrees with what I'm stating about such forum ABX tests, so funny you should mention him.
Conflating forum ABX tests with anything scientific & then trying to argue that I am irrational would seem rather ironic.
Yes, Jakob is a mine of information about blind testing & other areas - he has spelled out the pitfalls in blind testing many times & generally agrees with what I'm stating about such forum ABX tests, so funny you should mention him.
Last edited:
Right so you are conflating tests run & administered in academia with forum ABX tests & attempt to put such forum tests under the same "gold standard" umbrella?
Link please.
If you try & argue in a rational manner & not conflate academic blind testing with forum ABX tests, you may not be so confused.
I learn a lot from Jakob too & can't say I have disagreed with anything he has posted here although I see him disagreeing/clarifying your posts on many occasions
What are these "forum" ABX tests and why has this gone back to the ABX villain rather than simply any protocol that is truly blind?
There may be problems with the OP's first tests, but for every one like it you can find several of the usual sighted, uncontrolled ones with exaggerated claims like "I changed my cable lifters from oak to maple and my wife came running out of the kitchen asking what did I do to the sound". Do you think these further anything? There are plenty here from folks with something to sell too.
Which processor/DSP didn't add jitter/is 100 percent jitter free after measurement? Name one, every DSP adds jitter when measured. Every isolator chip adds ps jitter also, there is not a single isolator in the world that's jitter free, even the best isolator (NVE) adds 100ps jitter.
@TNT; If you really think that the sound quality isn't affected by jitter then that's your opinion and your judgement, you're free to have such opinion. But measurements and are never wrong.
If that was the end of the story I wouldn't have a problem, but it isn't.
These people then proceed under the assumption that their listening impressions are correct and can be presented as facts, without a jot of evidence, and ignoring any possible influence of expectation bias.
And this is the crux of the problem.
This forum is full of threads where self proclaimed experts offer sage advice based solely on their own sighted listening impressions. Are these impressions real? Are people getting the "good oil" or are they just being led down an often very expensive garden path?
If you followed the thread you would know what is being referenced as "forum ABX tests" - this particular thread being an example of such?
As Jakob & others, inclding me have stated many times already - ABX tests are the de facto blind test on foums requested by people looking for "proof".
Sure & every such sighted, uncontrolled listening opinion is challenged so do you believe this forum ABX test (typical of most forum ABX tests) shouldn't be similarly challenged?
The lack of a credible basis for one view doesn't imbue a counter-view with any credibility.
There are a lot of meaningless tests out there. This is just one of them.
Even if you believe that a double blind approach is necessary for a valid test, surely it can't be sufficient, regardless of the particular implementation or well-documented biases of the person designing and running the test.
So what is the actual crux of the matter? That people are perhaps wasting money on things you don't approve of? Do you have any non-audio related examples of such ostentatiousness? Do you similar post your disapproval on car forums, watch forums, wine forums, etc. to 'save these people' ?
+1 Well stated!!
My awkward way of putting it is that both these approaches should be treated as anecdotal evidence & evaluated in the way most people evaluate anecdotal evidence - check it out for themselves!!
But that seems inequitable for those that want to elevate forum ABX tests as 'scientific' - perhaps because the results generally support their agenda - all X sounds the same?
Last edited:
What does any of that have to do with anything we are discussing here?
Just answer the question!
I just wonder about the oft stated motivation of the ABX brigade to save people from themselves, save newbies from wasting their money.
It goes to motivation which is the driving force behind people's actions/arguments!
I wondered if this only applied to audio or do they have a general saviour-fixation in other forums such as wine, watches, cameras, etc?
Care to enlighten us?
This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding then. Is there jitter/clock skew in all the digital connections that run through the DSP/processor/etc? Yes. Under *non-pathological conditions* (pathological conditions would start causing massive bit errors), this jitter/clock skew is more than well-managed and has absolutely zero, nien, non, no, nej and whatever language you want to negate in bearing on the output jitter. The output jitter on the DAC is the only one that can actually affect the end output.
Digital communication is extremely robust as long as it's done right. Otherwise it's not sporadically erroneous, but pathologically.
There are subtle ways in which most of these analogies fail. I don't see how anyone could argue about performance properties of cars, cameras, telescopes, etc. though they all share a male dominated audience. Furthermore you will have a hard time finding expensive upgrades that don't have an easily observable (to most people without impaired senses) improvement. Watches are too much a fashion accessory.
Wine and food are too subjective, I for one have grown to dislike highly marbled grain fed meat which is prized by top restaurant in favor of 100% grass fed as well as being partial to many Asian "delicacies" that most non-Asians shun.
BTW it is not hard to find a highly trained MW (Master of Wine) that can identify wines blind individually with great accuracy, no ABX needed. This is no parlor trick, where is that audio equivalent? One could argue that there is no auxiliary equipment, though Reidel has made a fortune claiming otherwise so there are exceptions everywhere I suppose.
Oh, this question?
No more real or un-real than forum ABX tests
As I said before which was already an answer to your question but you either failed to understand or failed to read - both anecdotal listening impressions & pseudo-science ABX tests should both be treated as un-real.
I would add that devices should be evaluated personally at no/minimum cost to oneself - a decent trial period for home evaluation in which the device can be returned would be one of the pointers I would give to newbies.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.