I didn't know their Scoville rating, but I do know that the burn from them builds slowly over several minutes, after you've finished eating whatever food they were in. And then lingers long enough to show you the error of your ways. 😀
-Gnobuddy
i think you missed few episodes.. 🙂
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...idrange-blind-testing-need-your-help-100.html
You're being unfair to humanity when you say that all our ancestors used to be
superstitious. The human mind was designed to be attracted to the truth and believe
me when I say that, even the crooks whenever they count the money they have scored,
want it split in a way that they aggreed upon earlier. When you get sick and go to a
hospital, you want to be told the truth and only that might bring back the health.
The problem with high end stuff and those that like to buy it, is a multi layered
matter. It could be debunked in a more appropriate way.
Build a TDA8950 (clas-D chip) based amp and you will be surprised. While it's distortion is in that 0.1% ballbark the structure of the distortion is so bad that anybody can hear it readily. Kind of fizz that changes constantly with signal amplitude, sounds like a digeridoo when playing a decaying piano note at lower frequencies.
On the other hand, even 10% of pure static 2nd I found not very offending most of the time, strongly depending on source material.
Your mileage may vary...
0.1dB is a 1% change in amplitude, and I found it to be audible in a gapless A/B with pink noise. With music material, 0.3dB (3%) seems to be the JND level (depending on material, of course), and it makes itself apparant in that the louder signal sounds somewhat "fresher", more detail in the decay of reverb tails and such, but not as change in volume. At 1dB++ I actually start to hear a volume change as such...
I don't think anything is debunked here... at all.
A midrange not in a crossover designed to interact with two other drivers, at least, is only good for telling us that we have trouble with an ABX for midranges. It says nothing about how the driver sounds say when it starts to hit compression for example, or when it's loaded with 10% distortion. There's so many duties a driver plays that aren't represented here.
A midrange not in a crossover designed to interact with two other drivers, at least, is only good for telling us that we have trouble with an ABX for midranges. It says nothing about how the driver sounds say when it starts to hit compression for example, or when it's loaded with 10% distortion. There's so many duties a driver plays that aren't represented here.
Destroyer, your post is internally inconsistent.
It has been stated repeatedly (by at least Jon and me) that his main conclusion is only valid within the operating envelope of a driver.
Sometimes truth takes time to sink in.
It has been stated repeatedly (by at least Jon and me) that his main conclusion is only valid within the operating envelope of a driver.
Sometimes truth takes time to sink in.
Great work JB!
I don't want to steal the thread, but was wondering if there's anyone here who would be open to build me a switch box in order to blind test amps. If so, please pm me. Ideally an box that can be used with 2-way active speakers (2 amps to each channel).
I don't want to steal the thread, but was wondering if there's anyone here who would be open to build me a switch box in order to blind test amps. If so, please pm me. Ideally an box that can be used with 2-way active speakers (2 amps to each channel).
While I appreciate the OP's work I actually think Fatmarley raises an important point, namely, that some differences may be more easily discernible or become more readily apparent over time. Tests like these tend to assume that time, e.g. duration of exposure, is more or less irrelevant to our ability to detect and judge differences between things like speakers, so that what we judge to be the case from five minutes of exposure to a speaker will be the same as what we would judge from a week or a month of exposure to the same speakers (perfect homogeneity of experience and phenomena). But this doesn't seem to ring true in all cases (as the Dynaudio example is meant to illustrate).
Another potentially relevant point here has to do with the importance of learning in perception and the ease with which we can better discern differences of various kinds as our experience and expertise in distinguishing and identifying certain differences improves. Learning influences how things appear to us, how we perceive, and this should also be taken into consideration in these kinds of tests.
Thanks to the OP for prompting an interesting discussion.
Another potentially relevant point here has to do with the importance of learning in perception and the ease with which we can better discern differences of various kinds as our experience and expertise in distinguishing and identifying certain differences improves. Learning influences how things appear to us, how we perceive, and this should also be taken into consideration in these kinds of tests.
Thanks to the OP for prompting an interesting discussion.
Now, 100+ pages and 65,000 views later i've come to some conclusions that are... uhm... well:😱
(in any order)
1. Auditory capacities of humans are massively overestimated by audiophiles (and probably by most humans as well)
2. Frequency Response is King.
3. Once EQ'd, a 10$ midrange can mimic a 1500$ midrange, if within mechanical/electrical limits.
4. DSP/EQ/in-room measure tools might be the best investment an audiophile can make in our era.
5. Others will have to continue spending hundreds and thousands for a natural uncorrected FR.
Jon,
Not to shocking to me, had similar conclusions years ago when I conducted rather extensive testing:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/212240-high-frequency-compression-driver-evaluation.html
I would add that although the average auditory capacities of humans are often attenuated by constant bombardment with an endless variety of low fidelity sources and noise, there are still many individuals that can readily hear differences that the average person won't detect.
Although a $10 unit can sound OK when EQed, there is still a difference between "flat" and "smooth" response, one can EQ the gross deviations from any device, but trying to smooth the response of a cheap speaker that has several dB difference every few Hz requires so many filters it is not worth the time to work with, especially since the usual hallmark of cheap speakers is unit to unit inconsistency- each unit may require completely different EQ.
Also, cheap diaphragm (cone) materials tend to be heavier, and cheap magnet structures less powerful and focused, so transient response suffers, micro-detail is less. Again most won't notice, but some will, and are willing to pay the price for the difference.
For better or worse, my days of hearing tiny differences are over, but since I mix for audiences and performers that do include some exceptional individuals, I use speakers with high enough quality to please them, even though at home I'm OK with a pair of thrift store Onkyo's and a $3 old Kicker sub in the shop, and 20 year old Technic's and Hartke subs in the home theater.
Art
and yet, despite my 15/15 score (most probably solely because of the 1/2 octave missing) i wouldnt bet a dime on my ability to spot the Voxativ AC1.6 from, say, a Visaton FR10 once both EQd and level-matched.
You say that some will, but WHO ??
Please ask Mr. Spock to give me a call.
Well, ''time'' is actually a very important factor here.
Please refer to this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory
So far, it seems that 10-20 seconds music excerpts gives the best chance for the participants to spot differences.
... also, the Voxativ AC 1.6 was took from my own home speakers. Which i listened 1000's hours and that includes many analytical listening sessions... So logic would dictate that i'd be able to recognize ''my baby'' among the kindergarten crowd, isnt it ?
Not that easy, my friend. Not that easy.
All i thought about his micro/macro-dynamics prowess, Tadam! it disappear once i was behind the blacken goggles. All i was left in this blindness, was the 1/2 octave missing from the big fat pro audio midbass that could help me find my way out. And it wasnt easy at all.
Sorry folks for being late to the party and my apologies if i simply missed it, but is there a short but comprehensive description of the hypothesis tested, the methodology of the test, decision criteria and so on?
i'd say here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...shocking-results-conclusions.html#post4812574
would be a good start.
then, you can short-cut here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...idrange-blind-testing-need-your-help-100.html
and surf the pages...
FYI: the finding was accidental.
When the project started, my idea was not to prove humans are deaf 😉
When the project started, my idea was not to prove humans are deaf 😉
I skimmed through the article attached and didn't see anything to support your claim about short term memory being the best way of discerning differences nor anything that would deny the potential roles of 'working' memory and long term memory in such cases. Some people, for example, might be able to discern some differences better by 'chunking' information, a capacity that might be learned and improved upon with practice. Did I miss something?
I did preliminary tests with ''hardcore audiophiles'' (including myself) who should have had more than enough practice in their lives... But nothing made me think audiophiles have super-powers or expert-level hearing capacities.
In fact, the most ''golden ears'' we had so far is a complete non-audiophile.
Don't get me wrong here: this test was not about testing humans capacities nor how hard practice can affect results. Anyway, i don't have enough data yet, to begin with... We may see patterns when i'll have 20-30+ participants.
For me, all the practice and long-term listening things are completely irrelevant to my conclusions.
The simple fact that most people could be bluffed by a 10$ driver over a 1500$ is enough to raise serious questions.
Quick reminder: this bluff is in a context and a controlled-environment that gives much higher chances of detection than any real-life situation, where your mind is not focus at all for driver's detection.
The simple fact that most people could be bluffed by a 10$ driver over a 1500$ is enough to raise serious questions.
Quick reminder: this bluff is in a context and a controlled-environment that gives much higher chances of detection than any real-life situation, where your mind is not focus at all for driver's detection.