this is also what I read. but I also did read that 0.2 db is supposedly detectable.
this test may help to check if you can detect 0.2 db increase
Audible Difference in Sound Level Blind Listening Test
It is humanly impossible not to believe that a high end, polished piece of equipment does not sound better than some barren extension card. You can't, I can't, nobody can.
The perception of sound is a holistic process in which all factors determine the nature of the experience. You cannot just separate out the audible part in your mind, because it is shaped by the total experience. Therefore, it requires exclusion of all visible and other cues to ***** sound quality objectively.
If you were to perform a test without identifying clues on your two DACs, you would find they sound the same.
***** funny, I used with perfectly good intentions a word that would also describe ' brown double stars' , but in this context meant ' evaluate'. Big brother interfered.
Edit: I checked, the word I meant is spelled with double ss. Dammit, Big Brother was right again.
Last edited:
Except if you know that the barren card was designed by a team of mixed signal experts and the shiny was slapped together on a 2 layer board with expensive looking giant caps. Sometimes knowing its probably a bodge could swing things 🙂
yet none of the two examples I cited are anything that can be considered high end.
Your reply contradicts itself. Meaning of hi-fi and giving personal satisfaction don't go together.
Do you have ties to consumer electronics business?
Which advocate of audio DBT said otherwise?
And what did those bias mechanisms do to audio DBT that's been brought up here?
Did those error possibilities cause a failure of audio DBT in detecting audible difference that was there?
As I have said before , my definition for hifi gear is different to yours.
no contradiction.
Zilch!
But I do wish them the best, the industry must stay vibrant and active, if I am to benefit from it.
Thanx
May I take this opportunity to thank all participants, I really enjoyed head-butting with you guys!
As is norm, I learn (directly and indirectly) more from those who disagree with me.
You either open my eyes to things I had not considered before, or entice me to read more and search for more info. - so once again thank you.
I hope I have been polite and friendly enough, and you have enjoyed posting here as I have.
Yours all
Ken
May I take this opportunity to thank all participants, I really enjoyed head-butting with you guys!
As is norm, I learn (directly and indirectly) more from those who disagree with me.
You either open my eyes to things I had not considered before, or entice me to read more and search for more info. - so once again thank you.
I hope I have been polite and friendly enough, and you have enjoyed posting here as I have.
Yours all
Ken
Appreciated, Ken.
And likewise, youknowyou- it's great that you're open-minded enough to try to figure out how to set up experiments and do them.
And likewise, youknowyou- it's great that you're open-minded enough to try to figure out how to set up experiments and do them.
Introspection
Reading and observing discussions regarding audibility of things (0.2dB difference, DAC difference, the sound of cables, etc.) while at the same time reading the "telepathy" thread some things came to mind, for example:
(1) Some people have conducted experiments to understand the psychic power/energy where people is assumed to be able to use their sixth sense to recognize things with minimal clues. This is a lot more impossible than perceiving difference between DACs, isn't it so?
(2) <skipped>
My understanding about this psychic things is that simply about human ability to understand the working of his mind (brain/heart/body). The brain is so powerful covering things in the conscious region and things in sub-conscious region.
The boundary between conscious and sub-conscious is different from people to people. Those who do meditation (I believe) tend to be able to recognize thinking process that to others are within sub-conscious region.
The problem is, the result of sub-conscious thinking or process can usually burst into surface and the person have no clue how it has been formed, because he is only aware of his conscious mind!
In audio listening, I predict that people ability to feel that some DACs or other devices sound different (especially in a long time), can be the result of sub-conscious thinking process. The problem is, when they try to prove it using ABX, they fail miserably...
That's because in ABX people are doing mostly CONSCIOUS thinking. So there is no way they can duplicate what have been the result of sub-conscious process...
Reading and observing discussions regarding audibility of things (0.2dB difference, DAC difference, the sound of cables, etc.) while at the same time reading the "telepathy" thread some things came to mind, for example:
(1) Some people have conducted experiments to understand the psychic power/energy where people is assumed to be able to use their sixth sense to recognize things with minimal clues. This is a lot more impossible than perceiving difference between DACs, isn't it so?
(2) <skipped>
My understanding about this psychic things is that simply about human ability to understand the working of his mind (brain/heart/body). The brain is so powerful covering things in the conscious region and things in sub-conscious region.
The boundary between conscious and sub-conscious is different from people to people. Those who do meditation (I believe) tend to be able to recognize thinking process that to others are within sub-conscious region.
The problem is, the result of sub-conscious thinking or process can usually burst into surface and the person have no clue how it has been formed, because he is only aware of his conscious mind!
In audio listening, I predict that people ability to feel that some DACs or other devices sound different (especially in a long time), can be the result of sub-conscious thinking process. The problem is, when they try to prove it using ABX, they fail miserably...
That's because in ABX people are doing mostly CONSCIOUS thinking. So there is no way they can duplicate what have been the result of sub-conscious process...
You can't have a private definition of "hi-fi". It means 'high fidelity' - faithful to the original.KenTajalli said:
Some people find hi-fi unpleasant to listen to. That is fine. They can choose to hear something different. Problems only occur when they try to claim that their preferred infidelity is somehow more faithful than fidelity - like an adulterer saying that he only did it to rescue his marriage!
The key factor is normally to get used to a specific test protocol. There is no need to choose ABX as there are other protocols like paired (or multiple) comparisons which i prefer.
Any test protocol is somewhat artificial compared to normal listening. The participant(s) need to time to become accustomed and positive controls should be used to ensure that the listener is able to get good/correct results.
Any test protocol is somewhat artificial compared to normal listening. The participant(s) need to time to become accustomed and positive controls should be used to ensure that the listener is able to get good/correct results.
We have discussed that in "blowtorch thread" several times, and one goal of a reproduction is to recreate a perception that is most similar to the perception a listener would have had during the original event.
If we would be able to reproduce the original sound field there would be no doubt that is "high fidelity" , but as we can´t do it (leaving aside binaural listening for the moment) the "fidelity degree" depends not only on the reproduction but on the listener as well.
So it is quite likely that two listeners choose very different (from a technical point of view) reproduction systems but both were right in claiming that there system is "high fidelity".
Last edited:
As i can´t recall a detailed description of a listening test "here" i can´t answer that question.
We have discussed several results of controlled listening tests in the past where audible differences remain undetected.
Beside that, a listening test is an experiment like any other and therefore prone to exactly the same error possibilities.
You can choose any way you want if you are in search of something you personally prefer. I didn't see anyone objecting to that.
How artificial is "somewhat artificial"? Which level matched audio DBT failed to reveal the audible difference that was really there because of "somewhat artificial" listening? Have you ever done level matched audio DBT?
What kind of controlled listening tests? Are those level matched DBT electronic audio components? And how did they figure out that the audible differences were really there?
What you are saying is called "straw man argument".
Do you have ties to audio electronics business?
Let me add to that: Talking about loudspeakers in particular, current state-of-the-art is so bad relevant to "perfect" (maybe 10-20% of the way there) that it is entirely possible to choose a set of equally valid design criteria that create quite different sounding loudspeakers, and thus different sounding hifi.
Our current level of "focus" is so blurred that personal preference does play a large role when an individual chooses from the set of equally valid systems.
dave
im not sure if I believe in preference that much
ime, when I go audition speakers, me and my girlfriend always prefer the same speaker.
all the speakers I have had in my system that I thought was a improvement over my previous speaker, my friends all agreed.
Toole also suggested in his studies that preference may not be so ''personal''