John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2761 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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 12th September 2012, 06:46 PM   #27601
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcw666 View Post
The reason I posted here is quite simple.

That is that the assertion that you can hear such minutiae of performance in electronics is nonsense that has been proven to be untrue time after time, by the best methods available to us.

To then say that all such test methods are irrelevant because you cannot hear any differences when participating in such tests, is also nonsense, but then such a thing as "high end" audio could not exist unless it was mostly nonsense.
rcw
This was the specific point I was trying to make a week ago. A very simple switching setup will tell you first whether or not there is a difference. It will also give you a feel for what area of the sound to listen to. From there you can do all the double and quadruple blind testing you like because the participant at least has a bit of a bearing as to what aspect has changed or is different.

To drop someone into a blind test is disorientating at best... Once a listener has their bearings I would guess the accuracy of blind testing would actually improve dramatically with trained or interested participants.

The audible soundscape is a very complex experience and the minutiae mentioned above can be buried in the glare of a multitude of more proment aspects of the sound.

Mike
__________________
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. " Niels Bohr
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 06:51 PM   #27602
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Mike, that's the point of ABX or tests with a similar structure- the listener is free at any point to switch back and forth "sighted" between A and B. If the listener wants to spend time doing that to get a handle on the differences before beginning his guesses, that's fine.

Sorting tests are a bit tougher unless the listener is given a known pair of references.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 06:54 PM   #27603
Waly is offline Waly  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Waly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
When in a certain blind test I hear differences between say power cables, that certain test is capable of giving positive results. Else, I don't understand your question.
All clear now. So a DBT for the statement "Joshua can hear differences between A and B" is, in your opinion, rigurous and correct (by giving "positive results") only if Joshua can hear differences between A and B.

Ever heard of circular logic?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 06:57 PM   #27604
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakob2 View Post
No problem at all; zinsulas proposal is reasonable- a positive control is an effect that must be detected under test conditions and of course it should be comparable up to a certain degree.

If the experimenter doesn´t really know what to search for that presents a difficulty, but it is no excuse for violating the scientific rules.
I've been working as a scientist for about 35 years and I seem to have missed the "rule" about using a variable that is NOT the one being studied as a "positive control." That's a startling assertion.

Equally startling is the idea of post hoc recasting of questions, using statistically insignificant samples, and accepting self-reported results with no controls on scoring. These are fundamental errors of analysis. But hey, if that's "science" to you because you like the result, what can I say?
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 06:59 PM   #27605
coluke is offline coluke  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
When in a certain blind test I hear differences between say power cables, that certain test is capable of giving positive results.
Uhm, so you are not saying that the DBT procedure itself must give positive results (which in you experience is indeed the case), but that * every single specific DBT * must be proven to be able to give positive results in order to be meaningful. Correct? That's a pretty strange point of view - I think that if you're not going to hear differences between, say, different resistors orientation in a circuit thru a DBT test, maybe it's because resistors orientation doesn't have any effect on circuit's sound - imho it has nothing to do with DBT sensitivity or ability to reveal tiny differences. Unless you're persuaded that merely blinding a test affects the sensitivity of the testers, or establishes some sort of hearing threshold on them - I can't really figure out how that could happen.

L.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 07:14 PM   #27606
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
After a 1/2 hour phone call describing the quality and nature of the sound I was to hear and asking me to listen "deeper" after several attempts.... i finally did hear it. A low freq steady tone. (probably a ac line harmonic). Afterwards i heard it easily and always when I put on the headphones. It was subtle but it was there. Surely would not be heard in a dbt between mic preamps. -Thx RNm
I see in further reading my observation has already been touched on.
__________________
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. " Niels Bohr
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 07:21 PM   #27607
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by coluke View Post
No explanation at all - was only speculating on my experience when switching between CD and SACD versions of the same program; it sometimes happened that after discovering in the SACD some details I had never heard before, I noticed I was able to hear the very same details when reverting back to the CD version. Bias power...?

L.
Its sometimes in the mastering when talking CDs and SACDs. Not all SACDs are mastered the same as their CD counterparts (thank God). The target audience for SACDs is not the car stereo or the boom box; it is a bit more driven by sound quality. Of course the format is superior, but that is not all there is to it - mastering differences are important. I've heard many SACDs that are just as crappy as the CD - probably mastered the same. I've heard SACDs that are far better sounding, and it may very well be largely attributable to better mastering. I've also heard exceptional CDs. Many variables in play (so to speak).

Cheers,
Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 07:30 PM   #27608
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Mike, that's the point of ABX or tests with a similar structure- the listener is free at any point to switch back and forth "sighted" between A and B. If the listener wants to spend time doing that to get a handle on the differences before beginning his guesses, that's fine.

Sorting tests are a bit tougher unless the listener is given a known pair of references.
Then this would be a valid approach in my mind. I never spent the effort to sort through the different types. I always have a reference I've grown familiar with when I'm listening to changes I'm making.
__________________
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. " Niels Bohr
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 08:27 PM   #27609
diyAudio Member
 
Joshua_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Small village, Israel
Quote:
Originally Posted by coluke View Post
Uhm, so you are not saying that the DBT procedure itself must give positive results (which in you experience is indeed the case), but that * every single specific DBT * must be proven to be able to give positive results in order to be meaningful. Correct?
Yes, when we refer to a certain exact test procedure. Once a certain procedure demonstrates the ability to give, even at times, positive results, that procedure is correct, or meaningful. Now, we need to be attentive to the words *exact procedure*.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 09:32 PM   #27610
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
As I have previously pointed out Joshua any scientifically valid test must contain a falsifiable hypothesis.

I suppose depending upon your disposition , (whether you are a glass half full or glass half empty type), you can look at either falsified or not, as positive, or negative, or visa versa.
rcw
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2