I think that's all there is to it. Sometimes people may attribute what they hear to some other new hypothesized causation, but it's very unlikely anything new is actually involved.
Generally I take a different approach. I don’t do comparisons, but rather I ask the reviewer tell me what kind of problems can be described, let him choose his own music and just listen. As Douglas Self mentions, we want to strive for a faultless system.
Last edited:
Isn't that a leading question ??
You are telling the reviewer that there are problems!!
Andy
Not really, I am asking them whether they can find any problems. It is more like a normal design review process. Normally they are reviewing in their own listening environment. Certainly I hope no problems can be identified. But normally when anyone does find something, we will go through a very specific music passage to explain what they hear.
Asking about problems identified already is suggestive and must be considered as influencing. A more open "What do you think/feel?" would be less suggestive.
But then, soongsc is only interested in the purely subjective, so it's ok. Of course, it's of no help to anyone else but that's fine too, as long as it's understood.
Carlp, not the point. Many on this thread develop amps, speakers, interconnects, what have you. Others tweek. What is the point is that with all these activities, developers and tweekers need to apply a certain discipline in their decision process, that is, to evaluate changes without peeking. This is not always easily done, but it is the only way to be sure that one is not fooling him-or sometimes even herself.
True, it is of help mostly to the designers in the process of trying to identify, allocate, and eliminate faults.
And he influences that subjective impression by asking suggestive questions. Measuring the objective needs training and experience and only in a few cases is a s straigtforward as "put a probe there" and subjective testing isn't easier by any means. Of course we are circling to no end mentioning accepted and expected scientific methology for interviewing test subjects....
Two statements in one sentence:Max Headroom said:
1. physics is not wrong
2. physics is wrong
Which one do you actually mean? What is this "deeper level" you have invented?
There is no reason to suppose that Maxwell's equations are wrong, in the usual area of applicability. Of course, we know that we have to use QED etc. where quantum effects are important and something else will be needed where gravity is strong, but audio systems are well within the domain of applicability of Maxwellian EM. People suggesting otherwise are merely flagging up their lack of understanding of physics.
Spoken like someone who's never done audio DBT. It doesn't cost 10s of thousands of dollars and it can be done in living room in order to be valid.
I was responding to the constant call by others for scientific ABX testing, which IS, in fact, VERY expensive if you want defensibly valid results. I mean, people who are calling for a scientific approach to snake oil proponents can't then say, well, we don't need a scientifically valid ABX approach.
But I agree with your general point. If I were spending good money on gear I'd certainly want to evaluate it objectively. And, FWIW, I personally don't think a rigorous ABX is needed.
Quite simply, no. Not from a statistical validity standpoint, which is my point. If we call for science, let's not then say a living room ABX is adequate. Makes no sense to me.
That's because you are only going by hearsay. Once you've gained actual experience, you will have a different view on audio DBT.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.