He is a reporter. Bart Locanthi is an audio luminary, much harder to dis him.
Your obfuscation is doing nothing to support your arguments.
dave
The obvious thing you are overlooking is that the test you cited used different method of comparing and it's not same as doing ABX, if you understand how ABX works.
So you want to equate mountain bicycle race results to road bicycle race results, eh? Well, they both use human powered transportation with two wheels and gears so why not, right? 🙄
You got ABX on the brain. ABX is a blind test, but only a single example of a blind test. We have been talking about blind tests, not just ABX. Got it?
If a better test can exibit a massive fail, what does that say about the possibility of ABX failing? Certainly greater than zero. ABX is not the holy grail.
I won't repeat myself again.
dave
I didn't say shill is the only thing Robert Harley is. He is the editor of The Absolute Sound magazine which makes money from selling advertisement spots for (mainly) high-end audio electronics. Imagine what would happen to the revenue if he supports audio DBT which have shown time and time again the inaudible difference between high-end DACs, amps and preamps vs cheaper units from Best Buy or the likes? Those high-end electronics sellers will drop him like hot potato.
He also wrote a book The Complete Guide to High-End Audio which you ought to read the review on here.
"I will refrain from personalizing my complaints and stick to the issues as I see them. To write this book as the author, you should know Ohm's Law. Harley does not. This is made evident in several examples. Amperes, voltage and wattage are all part of a greater equation that appears to mystify the author. The basic laws of physics and simple electrical concepts need be firmly grasped prior to making an endeavor such as this. There are many elements of "Dark Science" in the high-end audio realm and a mystique that is largely relevant. This book does a strong job of handling that delicate balance between science and myth, that is so important to this industry. Along the way however it forgets to "check the science""
Something for you to think about before being defensive for Robert Harley.
So what? Tarring one of the many messengers? The reporter isn't important, that the event happened is. Robert Harley is not important here. You are welcome to dis him on his own work (not in this thread thou, that would be off-topic), but not for reporting the facts of someone else's.
Quit with the red herrings please. You are doing yourself no favours.
dave
The test you cited didn't show the failure of ABX. It showed some shill's attempt to equate ABC/HR with ABX which are two different methods for two different purposes. Please stop falling for that professional shill's tactics. 🙁
No it didn't. It showed the failure of a well designed blind test with a huge N.
It is a warning to pay attention with ABX because it is pretty easy to screw one of those up. A well executed ABX is strong statistically if it shows a difference, pretty weak if it nulls (ie a high probability of not detecting a difference even if it is there -- some call that "designed to fail")
dave
But you still haven't cited actual audio DBT (ABX) which failed to detect audible difference that was really there.
i'm not anti DBT. I am anti BAD DBT, and people improperly extending the results of a DBT. DBT are far too often badly executed.
dave
dave
dave talked about the difference about when someone test the sound with the intent of listening for difference in the sound vs someone who listen to music.
I think thats a major pitfall of any ''test''.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
To be perfectly honest one doesn't need to be intent on listening for differences in sound if they are 'night and day' like some people claim.
it seems some people think that night and day difference can be caused due to 0.2db difference and not the DAC.
Last edited:
Kunchar covers the issues he had to make his ABX tests work. It failed until he got the ancillary equipment up to snuff.
Then he used ABX to show that human time resolution is at least as good as 5 µS.
dave
Why not create the files and ABX it by yourself? Then when you are sure no audible difference is there, let me do the ABX.
I'm interested to hear differences in different technology such as delta sigma versus the others.
Up until now, sounded like you were referring to all audio DBT.
I wasn't talking about audio DBTs done improperly. Ones that are done properly have shown consistently that competently designed DACs are audibly indistinguishable, excluding very small percentage of the ones designed to "color" the sound.
There you go extending the results beyond their capability (ie improperly). You cannot prove a negative.
Any DBT that produces a null case (the DUT are the same) is only applicable to that test, any extention beyond that is erroneous. It might have some meaning to the person taking that test, but it is entirely possible that the next time a difference is heard.
An ABX test, in particular, can only prove that DUT are different.
dave