! a few multi syllable words explaining in a bit more depth would help us understand more what you are trying to say, no content...
Although a bit more complex in reality, basically it does not make a difference if you (for example) ask one participant 100 times or 100 participants only once.
(In reality multiple replications by one person may infringe the non-depence assumption and may therefore require different statistical methods)
Of course, if you want to draw conclusions to listening abilities of the population, you can´t work with only one participant, but if you are only interested in the question if a difference between two DUTs is perceptable, then one participant is fine.
If a formal difference test in advance is needed depends totally on the question that is under research, different questions lead to different test concepts.
thanks Ken, DF96
but the problems that Ken mentioned just way too extreme and not seems applicable to my test/measurement
if things go that wrong i expect it will sound somewhat bad, harsh, blurry, lack power, noisy, things get overheat etc
no, i dont have such problems, the diff is lot more subtle but still, its audible
fyi i ALWAYS use shielded rca and speaker is biwired with cable as thick (at least 16ga) and short (<2M) as possible, and as said, there no big diff in LCR (already the 3rd time btw)
any other insight?
but the problems that Ken mentioned just way too extreme and not seems applicable to my test/measurement
if things go that wrong i expect it will sound somewhat bad, harsh, blurry, lack power, noisy, things get overheat etc
no, i dont have such problems, the diff is lot more subtle but still, its audible
fyi i ALWAYS use shielded rca and speaker is biwired with cable as thick (at least 16ga) and short (<2M) as possible, and as said, there no big diff in LCR (already the 3rd time btw)
any other insight?
Perhaps my ears are not that 'Golden' when it comes to speaker and interconnect cables.
I have used multistrand OFC directional crystal vs solid core 30amp house wiring, at under 2m for my speakers, I could not tell any diff.
I have also used 3m pair of decent shielded cable from Maplins at £2/m vs Mogami pro cables, again I heard no diff.
Mogami is very nicely made, so I am using them (paid for them, might as well) - but not for their sound quality.
Inside my amp, I tend to use standard solid core and Maplin shielded cable where appropriate.
I did try to hear differences, but I couldn't.
Hifi is a hobby for me, so when I hit a brickwall it is no fun anymore.
Similarly, I can not hear differences in exotic resistors. If used properly , they all sound the same to me.
Capacitors, can sound different, for me the old Russian K40y-9's and WIMA plastic caps will do for signal, exotic ones don't do any better.
Last edited:
Sorry, but it is only one sense in use..., but of course there is a distraction factor...
Of course, but all these explanations only occur, because the existence of the difference (and its perceptibility) can´t be negated.
It enlightens the fact, that there is no easy relationship between the degree of a difference and its detection.
To emphasize the "blindness property" is quite dangerous, therefore i wrote:
"Doing controlled tests is a very good idea, but just doing something "blind (or double blind)" is not sufficient."
If you did think that the gorilla experiment was intended as an argument against controlled listening tests, you should consider preconceptions at your side.... 😉
Please be more specific; which part needs further discussion?
That is a bit misleading- although psychophysics is part of physics, "physics" does not say that cables don´t change the sound.
Physics says if the stimulus used for the measurement is altered or not (within the uncertainty of any measurement process).
Your no. 2 is an inference to the whole population; could you please cite a few listening tests wrt cables, that _really_ met scientific standards?
Cable do have an effect on the analogue signal, that can be measured, but it is with correctly engineered cables for the job inaudible....
Would be a better way of putting it.
Would be a better way of putting it.
OK.
1. Physics says that any appropriate cable will change the signal so minutely that psychoacoustics says almost nobody will be able to hear the corresponding sound change.
2. I am not aware of any ears-only listening test which showed that appropriate cables produced an audible sound change for the test participants.
Of course, there may be three people in the world with much more sensitive hearing - and one of them may be on this forum. There may be thirty three thousand people in the world who believe they have much more sensitive hearing - and they are all on this forum.
1. Physics says that any appropriate cable will change the signal so minutely that psychoacoustics says almost nobody will be able to hear the corresponding sound change.
2. I am not aware of any ears-only listening test which showed that appropriate cables produced an audible sound change for the test participants.
Of course, there may be three people in the world with much more sensitive hearing - and one of them may be on this forum. There may be thirty three thousand people in the world who believe they have much more sensitive hearing - and they are all on this forum.
Perhaps I should have used the word "focus" as in more than one areas to be focused.
Based on your responses last few pages, you are trying to argue that audio double blind test is flawed because it can miss audible difference just like that "gorilla" video. But you have not presented any evidence of audio DBT missing audible difference. What you've been citing as your evidence isn't evidence at all, it's just a speculation when you say, "You are absolutely right, every human sense is easily fooled, but that holds true for both possible errors, but, as illustrated by your argument, "nonbelievers" tend to concentrate on only one error, which is (technically spoken) equivalent to neglecting Beta errors.".
You think just because human visual sense behaves certain way, the aural sense would do the same, right? That's what I meant when I asked if you have discussed this with an audio expert.
It would have to be good, the figures I saw on one thread here recently were down in the sub 130dB level, apart from a bespoke audiophile cable...
I already stated what I think about my experience that all dac sound different and they really affect SQ of a system.
theres not such thing a 100% transparent dac and all dacs that I ever had or tried sounded different in many different ways, some dacs VERY obviously better then others.
ridiculous claims like "theres many DAC that are transparent" makes me cringe as its not my experience at all and ive had quite a few DACs from all price point.
I hear much bigger difference in DAC then I ever did in amps.
Last edited:
Odd that because I hear less difference with DACs than I hear or think I hear in amps.
(Not including anything with valves in it.)
Valves?
they evolved into transistors,
which themselves evolved to microchips!
Where have you been all these years?
Galapagos Islands? 😉
I have tried casual listening comparisons and just like you, I did hear difference between DACs. Then on the same day, I did level matched listening comparison of those DACs while not knowing which is being used and the difference I once heard disappeared.
I have tried the listening comparison that you tried and also level matched DBT. Have you tried both like I did? If you haven't, don't knock it till you try it.
In level unmatched comparison, right?
yes, I did many time blind testing level matched
I can easily tell from my vinyl playback system, to my sd-1 ec design player, to my buffalo to my hrt ms 2.
I can easily tell from my vinyl playback system, to my sd-1 ec design player, to my buffalo to my hrt ms 2.
To what decibel did you level match and what did you use for doing so? Also, how did you accomplish blind aspect of the test and how did you do the switching?
I thought the comparison was between different DACs.
I have, in my pass b1, my phono stage integrated.
when I did my test I also had my hrt ms 2 and my sd player sd-1 and buffalo all connected to my pass b1 and level matched in blind test. with the flick of a switch, my girlfriend simply switch the source on my pass b1
headphones such as ath m50, hd-650 with my ifi ican and also with speakers.
I also tested my friends, myself, my girlfriends, just for the fun of it
they could all tell me which one they preferred, in order and the sd-1 player was always the preferred dac. no matter the song tested, ect, the sd player always was the preferred dac.
comparing the sd player sd-1 to a buffalo 2 to a hrt ms2, I must say that its impossible not to hear very evident difference.
for vinyl vs dac, its more complicated as the source is never the same (the vinyl for example is not the same type of pressing then my digital format), so its less scientific but i mention vinyl playback just for fun.
Last edited:
with a white noise file and 1khz tone, using a mic in audacity. Im not in the 0.2db and I doubt the claim about being able to hear 0.2db difference.
you also should look at what studio guy do which is even better.
they simply route two dac to their console so they can match the levels or they have access to speaker controller that allow very precise level matching.
Last edited: