Spoken like someone who doesn't understand statistics and degrees of freedom and has certainly not DONE such analyses (I have).
Last edited:
OR the outlies are left out because they disproves the theory under test.
That's one more possible reason.
I should clarify. Many here have thrown out double blind ABX testing as the necessary mechanism to prove effectiveness. In order to be valid (remember, the call for ABX was to provide a valid analysis), it would have to be BIG, and NO, you can't do this casually in your living room in order to be valid. And if it's not valid, what's the point? It's no different than anyone here saying they hear a difference without ABX/double blind.
But take it one step further to study whether ANYONE can hear a small difference and in my experience and education, that becomes a much bigger study still. I haven't thought this through fully but I'm suspecting thousands of subjects and each with enough repetitions (degrees of freedom) to be valid.
Last edited:
Not sure if this is what you are referring to but I ended up sending them south after performing my listening tests and have not seen hide nor hair of them since.
Cal's Bybee experience
It´s not tech stuff... it is science. If you have something to change in the Maxwell´s equations, please, let us know.
Best regards,
Btw, on the topic of outliers...
I've met quite a few persons with amazing hearing skills (through innate ability and training). Sound engineers able to quickly and accurately pinpoint deviations in frequency response, resonances, and so on. They could hear stuff I simply couldn't or at least more accurately than I could.
However, in all cases, they simply heard it "better". Make the FR deviation bigger and I could start to hear it too. Increase a delay and I could get it too.
Here we are to accept that the outliers would hear stuff that the common people wouldn't. It's not only a matter of threshold, it's a matter of hearing something completely different. Sorry but the game has changed. I'm willing to believe people when they compare crossovers crossing points or even smallish change in THD. They are just pushing the envelope of what is known to matter. But if they need to make up whole new theories... that's something different and they'd better have something serious to back it up.
I've met quite a few persons with amazing hearing skills (through innate ability and training). Sound engineers able to quickly and accurately pinpoint deviations in frequency response, resonances, and so on. They could hear stuff I simply couldn't or at least more accurately than I could.
However, in all cases, they simply heard it "better". Make the FR deviation bigger and I could start to hear it too. Increase a delay and I could get it too.
Here we are to accept that the outliers would hear stuff that the common people wouldn't. It's not only a matter of threshold, it's a matter of hearing something completely different. Sorry but the game has changed. I'm willing to believe people when they compare crossovers crossing points or even smallish change in THD. They are just pushing the envelope of what is known to matter. But if they need to make up whole new theories... that's something different and they'd better have something serious to back it up.
So, maybe running a signal through a longer string of Bybees would get it up to the threshold where us great unwashed could hear it as well? Though I'm not volunteering my wallet to fund all those thingies.
It would for sure be a bit more expensive than daisy chaining opamps, as was done in some tests.
The problem is, what we're dealing with here are people who would actually believe that painting dots on their DAC would make a difference in the sound.
And people who want to sell you the paint.
I'm thinking of starting dating. Linda Ronstadt, 1967.
This was on my Vintage Television Collectors FB feed. TV is a RCA 721TS in case you wondered.
If I put a photo of Linda Ronstadt on my DAC will that make the sound better?
This post is a lot more pleasant than the general overtone that this thread has provided.
This was on my Vintage Television Collectors FB feed. TV is a RCA 721TS in case you wondered.
If I put a photo of Linda Ronstadt on my DAC will that make the sound better?
This post is a lot more pleasant than the general overtone that this thread has provided.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm thinking of starting dating. Linda Ronstadt, 1967.
This was on my Vintage Television Collectors FB feed. TV is a RCA 721TS in case you wondered.
If I put a photo of Linda Ronstadt on my DAC will that make the sound better?
This post is a lot more pleasant than the general overtone that this thread has provided.
Didn't know the poor lass has Parkinson's
I had this poster of Linda on the wall of my room when I was in a 28-day rehab program about 35 years ago. She sure brightened up the place. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.