I have some friends that were heavily involved with compression development and have discussed this extensively with them.
But AFAIK, our tests were developed independently. Absolute Listening Tests-Further Progress was a VERY early step in is evolution and in fact, the complex protocol described was much less useful than the simple protocol I posted. (The other points and the hardware etc are all still valid & useful ... as is the Room Interface Profile
If the effect can't be picked out unless it is demonstrated ad nausuem first, it is inconsequential.
BTW, I am ALWAYS after preference but ONLY from those who express this reliably. Remember, my object is to design stuff which sounds better.
For those who are not consistent, it is more profitable to stress Virgins & Unobtainium. 🙂
If my true golden pinnae note a consistent difference but express no preference, this is also an important finding ... MUCH more important than Chalk & Cheese comments from deaf Golden Pinnae who can't assign these characteristics reliably.
The 'correct' conclusion from this result is that the choice of treble unit makes NO significant difference ... or that other factors, eg improper matching of xover to the 2 different units and their integration to the bass unit, are the dominating factor
... or that the listener is a deaf Golden Pinnae. The repeat test(s) will sort this out if the ABC doesn't already.
As really a speaker man, I've a lot of experience with this last example of yours.
Last edited:
Very true. In a real blind test I have seen some old geeks didn't want their votes to be mentioned in public. And same here, some members will never want to vote. Yes, why should they risk ruining their CREDIBILITY? 😀
Never mind about your spoilers, the test is completely invalid anyway because of the filenames: a significant fraction of males are blue green colour blind.
I've tested quite a few HiFi Reviewers, some of whom claim to be Golden Pinnae.
I always give them a choice of remaining anonymous or letting their names be on our Files. I tell them this before I tell them their results.
Mooly & Pano, I think you should give all listeners the same choice. It would be good to have all individual results on a spreadsheet and the results of other tests incorporated.
Then we amass evidence that 'A is a true golden Pinnae', 'John Smith is a deaf Golden Pinnae' etc
PS The comments of the true golden pinnae are often as useful as their scores so please make room on the spreadsheet for them.
Last edited:
Pano said:
The ONLY type of info we can tell listeners is something that is SO FAR from the truth that it can't possibly affect listeners eg
Tell them its SE triode vs Bob Cordell's 1984 amp.
Da deaf Golden Pinnae will immediately hear Chalk & Cheese differences. True golden pinnae will say, "I think they sound very similar but ... " cos they trust their ears.
BTW, this is all from experience over nearly 2 decades.
IMHO, that may be, or may not be true.
It is those seemingly minor nuances that on early listenings may not be noticed, that however can build to contempt on extended listening/living with a particular system/item.
On the other hand, this extended listening may also build admiration.
Dan.
Thank you, and yes, that is a downfall of relatively short period ABX testing.
Unfamiliarity will expose gross characteristics in short period testing with decently skilled listeners, but longer term (even sighted) testing might be required to tease out the fine differences.
It can be those fine differences that make or break a system/item.
Dan.
A single 'trial' in my tests can take 1/2 a day. ie the listener can take 1/2 a day to make as many comparisons of the 3 'presentations' as he likes WITH HIS CHOICE OF MUSIC.
In nearly 2 decades of conducting DBLTs, I have not found any nuance that can't be picked out in 1/2 day that proved false for more extended listening .. that's provided the 'nuance' is reliably detectable in the first place.
If the listener extends the 'trial' to 1/2 a day, it means he really likes at least one of the 'presentations'.
It's the same phenomena when a reviewer says, the DUT is so good, he was persuaded to listen to his whole record collection again.
The 1/2 day limit is purely arbitrary cos its difficult to tie up expensive people and equipment just for 1 trial for one listener for longer periods. But no one has asked for more time.
But if they can't make up their mind after 1/2 day, they are not going to do better with more time.
I have results for a small number of tests (on purely electronic stuff) where the ABC equipment was set up in the listener's domestic system allowing him to do the test at his own convenience in his own home for several days but this did not show any better discrimination than the 1/2 day test in our R&D listening room.
This was done to answer the deaf Golden Pinnae claims that they can't possible decide on sound quality without using the DUT at home for a zillion days. 😱
_____________
No need for longer term or sighted tests. Just put the 'Hand carved by Virgins from solid Unobtainium' label on the correct 'button' for each trial. 🙂Max Headroom said:
Instant detection of even the finest differences. 😀
_____________
DAMN! Sorry for spoiling your test. 😱PMA said:
Last edited:
Oh no! You are correct. We have to count all the "I Can't Decide" votes to the color blind.
That used to seem like such a long time to me. Alas, not any more. Damn old age.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.