FYI, the test is not over yet.
That 3rd and last attempt might be interesting. Be sure that if we find a positive identification (even by only one person, on only one music excerpt) i'll be happy to even change the thread title.
It's pretty much the all-out attempt: Source is changed, no iTunes/computer, HD files will be used, larger selection of tunes, no switchbox, closer to the speakers, top ribbon tweeters, high sensitivity mid-woofer... I think it's promising. Wouldn't bet on the outcome, but it's promising.
That could be a bad cable. Two reasons:iliverez said:
1. you are using what is essentially a shielded twisted pair for an unbalanced connection, when you should be using a shielded cable with a single inner. Shielded twisted pair can be used for a pseudo-balanced connection - a floating balanced source (e.g. MM cartridge) feeding an unbalanced input.
2. it sounds like a rather bad way to make a twisted pair.
It might be bad enough to affect the sound.
Speaker cables and interconnects have some things in common, and some areas where the issues are quite different.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread so I will say no more about cables (unless provoked).
I'm pointing out the nature of auditory perception when expected to perform in forced choice blind tests as Abraxalito stated - it's not normal listening.
Do you really consider one person pointing out the difference(s) he could hear as "training"?
Does this reveal anything about the nature of the test itself?
If you are only interested in "differences that are obvious" in such force choice blind tests, then stick to only testing speakers otherwise, yes, some level of understanding of what to focus on, some understanding of the best material to expose such factors & some understanding of how to do perceptual testing is needed because of the well known nature of auditory perception & the requirements of such forced choice tests. Otherwise you're just p**ssing in the wind as so many of these forum 'tests' are.
But again, if you are not really interested in the nature of auditory perception & "human auditory capacities", as you stated then fair enough.
Last edited:
Maybe i can micro-wave the FiiO or sink it in water prior of the test ?
Jokes aside, i started with the FiiO because i really thought that was the lowest possible (perceived) quality there is available, unless your goal is to find a defective or absolute worst in the world, which is not our case.
I am assuming everybody will rather seek for the best price/quality ratio.
19,99$.
Use the internal dac, i.e. analog out from the Mac Mini ...
It's not just you.
Peter Walker (of QUAD fame) was one of many who pointed out, decades ago, that good audio amplifiers were already essentially perfect; whatever imperfections remained, were below the ability of the human ear to detect.
Back then you still had to deal with rumble, wow, flutter, pops and ticks, tape print-through and saturation, imperfect NAB and RIAA equalization, mechanical resonances in pickup cartridges, treble loss from inadequately small playback tape head gaps, inadequate dynamic range, and more.
Since that time, we also got the CD, and its descendants, uncompressed 16-bit or better digital audio files, which removed all of these problems. All audible imperfections from the entire recording and playback chain - except for microphones, loudspeakers, and room acoustics - are now gone.
And I bet you can quite easily tell the difference between different loudspeakers and different listening rooms in a listening test. If you use typical microphones, I bet you can easily tell most of them apart, too.
As far as I'm concerned, it has really come down to just these three things. They are the only things in audio that are not yet perfect, and so have quite clearly audible differences - loudspeakers, microphones, listening rooms.
Actually there is one other thing, which is the limitations of having only two (stereo) or 4 (quad) audio channels - not quite enough to reproduce the feeling of "being there". But that isn't about to change any time soon, and fiddling with $3000 DACs certainly won't help the situation one bit, either.
-Gnobuddy
FYI, the test is not over yet.
That 3rd and last attempt might be interesting. Be sure that if we find a positive identification (even by only one person, on only one music excerpt) i'll be happy to even change the thread title.
It's pretty much the all-out attempt: Source is changed, no iTunes/computer, HD files will be used, larger selection of tunes, no switchbox, closer to the speakers, top ribbon tweeters, high sensitivity mid-woofer... I think it's promising. Wouldn't bet on the outcome, but it's promising.
Isn't blind testing meant to eliminate biases so how are you intending to deal with the very strong bias already instilled in you & your participants from past blind test null results? As I showed this is such a strong bias that it can override even sighted listening biases.
I think the worst DAC i witnessed in my life was from an early-2000 cheap China made MP3 player.
We could probably find something very bad in some mobile phones, but i don't think that's the goal of the test. It won't prove anything, IMO. From my point of view, that's just downright defective devices (poorly designed).
I'm actually very VERY impressed by the fact that a modern 19,99$ standalone DAC can do that kind of performance (or non-performance?). It's nightmarish for audiophiles who spent time and money on expensive converters, but it's impressive nonetheless.
Props to you for actually doing the test, and for having the courage to report it here, in the land of obsessed audio fanatics.
Personally, I'm not the least bit surprised by your findings. A lot of engineering went into the creation of even the earliest 16-bit DACs for audio, and they were already found to have no audible imperfections even then, decades ago. That's why 16 bits was chosen as part of the CD audio standard.
Since then a lot has happened in the world of semiconductor design and fabrication, and amazingly good A/D chips can now be found even in the toy microphones sold with Rock Band and similar video games. Not because the manufacturer sought out $3000 chipsets, but because even the cheapest ones on the market are audibly flawless now, unless the PCB layout has been compromised and there is an audible noise floor.
All we have left to improve is loudspeakers, microphones, and listening rooms...
-Gnobuddy
Easy, fresh meat. Lured with cappuccinos.
Isn't it great to see such serious attempts at being objective - really restores one's faith in how much can be achieved by pseudo-science - do carry on.
I'm sorry to hear about your lack of sense of humor, mmerrill99, but in all the previous pages i see nothing that would make me think ABX testing method is flawed. I don't think it is.
But i do think that many people -let's call them passionate people- are mindblocking the ABX testing method because they don't deliver the results they want. I can understand that. I don't agree, but i can understand, it's human.
Ok, maybe the training factor. But that's way beyond ''normal''. It's already way beyond normal situations.
You don't get to put tags on Hi-Fi equipements in stores ''Requires training'', that's just downright silly.
No, either it's an obvious, on-the-spot detectable difference or subtle but spottable under controlled ABX testing.
Please. Please. No break-ins, no special esoteric cables, no training.
Snake oil mumbo-jumbo had a very good ride for few decades. Please prepare to land.
But i do think that many people -let's call them passionate people- are mindblocking the ABX testing method because they don't deliver the results they want. I can understand that. I don't agree, but i can understand, it's human.
Ok, maybe the training factor. But that's way beyond ''normal''. It's already way beyond normal situations.
You don't get to put tags on Hi-Fi equipements in stores ''Requires training'', that's just downright silly.
No, either it's an obvious, on-the-spot detectable difference or subtle but spottable under controlled ABX testing.
Please. Please. No break-ins, no special esoteric cables, no training.
Snake oil mumbo-jumbo had a very good ride for few decades. Please prepare to land.
What's abnormal, maybe unique, it's a multi-billion market that is floor-covered by a thick layer of snake-oil. Still, in 2017.
Amazes me every day.
The whole market is based on a bunch of lies. Not fraudulent type of lies but rather ignorant type of lies. Contagious lies, very contagious. Spreading everywhere: Home Theather, HiFi, Pro Audio, Car Audio, everywhere.
I just can't imagine that pattern in any other market, even the Wine market -which is a special one i can assure you- or Video or Photography or Motorsports...
It's a very unique situation, almost an anthropological curiosity.
Amazes me every day.
The whole market is based on a bunch of lies. Not fraudulent type of lies but rather ignorant type of lies. Contagious lies, very contagious. Spreading everywhere: Home Theather, HiFi, Pro Audio, Car Audio, everywhere.
I just can't imagine that pattern in any other market, even the Wine market -which is a special one i can assure you- or Video or Photography or Motorsports...
It's a very unique situation, almost an anthropological curiosity.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
you are kidding yourself if you think it's going away. Most of the the money in the industry rides on it.
So I have pointed out & given evidence of a bias that you choose to ignore based on your "belief". How is this 'test' anything other than a reinforcement of your belief?
It's human & understandable that many people ignore the pitfalls in perceptual testing because it delivers the results they want - the null results which are the inevitable outcome of ignoring these pitfalls.
What is way beyond normal is forced choice blind listening testing as you have been told many times already
This focus on "training" is one of your blind spots - the training is only needed because this type of 'testing' is not 'normal' listening & in order to participate in such a test in an objective way, it is necessary to 'train' oneself to identify EXACT differences between two audio files & using this 'training' to then enter the blind test, only focusing on this EXACT difference. So have you done this in your listening or are you expecting some "obvious difference" to jump out & grab your attention?
This 'training' is only needed because of the nature of the 'test' itself - it doesn't say anything about the long term satisfaction one will have with the sound of the device. What is a minor difference between devices in such A/B testing can easily become a dissatisfaction factor over a longer period when one is exposed to the sound of the device using a range of audio files & possibly a range of equipment.
Have you read the link I gave or studiously ignored it & the experience of the participants in those blind tests?
Have you read any of the official guidelines on how to perform auditory blind tests & what parts are you implementing/ what are you ignoring & why?
You've already said that you are not controlling for the already instilled very strong bias that you & others have instilled from the previous null test so how is this "controlled ABX testing"? Do you mean it's controlled to provide the results you want?
Did I mention any of that? No! I specifically said that you don;t understand what you are doing & refuse to learn anything about it, preferring instead to operate on your "beliefs"
Do carry on!!
Jon,
The market is not based on lies. The lies are embedded in the audiophiles heads. These guy's money drives the nonsense in the market. You just came along and confirmed it.
Congratulations, an exercise very well done!
Few notes about ABX testing:
It's not true that ABX testing are only providing results that shows no difference. As long as you reach a threshold where identification is possible, you'll get positive identifications.
1ml of vodka diluted in 2 liters of Coca-cola might be difficult to catch but pure vodka v.s. pure Coca-cola might get you 100% positive results from every participants (if not, call for help).
I think the same applies here, in audio. The problem is we have our heads stucked in devices comparisons that are equivalent to spotting 0.01ml diluted in 100 liters. That's just not fair for our human capacities.
We need to lower the bar. We need to accept that we do not have superpowers. Also, we need to understand that in case of doubt, the brains are programmed to create differences. Differences perceived are real for us, but not sensorial-real. That is why we all do perceive differences but fail to prove it.
-----------------
One other thing: it's easy to make an error with the ABX test methodology or set-up. Making two different things adjusted, calibrated, equal is much harder than making two things different perfectly equal. Therefore, positive identification is in advantage, not the other way around.
That's why POSITIVE identification needs to be questionned much more than negative identification.
That's why i'm very focused on SPL-matching while making such test. A difference of 0.3-0.5db can be identified and that would spoil the test without anybody knowing. Just because of that.
Also, the switching procedure. Very important. NO noise. If noises are unavoidable, you must make the procedure so there is the same noise all the time, even if no switch are being made. Participants, consciously or not, will try to find ANYTHING to grasp, including noises, other people's comments, etc.. That's not cheating per se, but great care must be taken.
Bottomline: it's much harder to prove a positive identification than the other way around.
It's not true that ABX testing are only providing results that shows no difference. As long as you reach a threshold where identification is possible, you'll get positive identifications.
1ml of vodka diluted in 2 liters of Coca-cola might be difficult to catch but pure vodka v.s. pure Coca-cola might get you 100% positive results from every participants (if not, call for help).
I think the same applies here, in audio. The problem is we have our heads stucked in devices comparisons that are equivalent to spotting 0.01ml diluted in 100 liters. That's just not fair for our human capacities.
We need to lower the bar. We need to accept that we do not have superpowers. Also, we need to understand that in case of doubt, the brains are programmed to create differences. Differences perceived are real for us, but not sensorial-real. That is why we all do perceive differences but fail to prove it.
-----------------
One other thing: it's easy to make an error with the ABX test methodology or set-up. Making two different things adjusted, calibrated, equal is much harder than making two things different perfectly equal. Therefore, positive identification is in advantage, not the other way around.
That's why POSITIVE identification needs to be questionned much more than negative identification.
That's why i'm very focused on SPL-matching while making such test. A difference of 0.3-0.5db can be identified and that would spoil the test without anybody knowing. Just because of that.
Also, the switching procedure. Very important. NO noise. If noises are unavoidable, you must make the procedure so there is the same noise all the time, even if no switch are being made. Participants, consciously or not, will try to find ANYTHING to grasp, including noises, other people's comments, etc.. That's not cheating per se, but great care must be taken.
Bottomline: it's much harder to prove a positive identification than the other way around.
This. The burden of proof is on those who claim to hear a difference in ANY test involving electronics. Because ABX testing (properly set up, as you indicated) rigorously eliminates both conscious and unconscious bias, it is anathema to those whose ego or business depend on those biases.
What i see is a market that is collapsing.
Audiophiles are getting older (and they eventually die)... Younger people are less interested than we were in 70's, 80's, 90's... Portable devices, headphones and soundbars are the leading products now... HiFi boutiques are closing or are struggling...
Not because audio shows are filled with 100,000$ systems that these systems do sells..
For maybe the last 15-20 years, it's almost a hobby by itself to start a business based on that hobby (!).
Basically, it's glorified crafting. But it's not because you're putting a price tag on something that is making that a business.
A business is something that answers a problem. It's something that will interests as much people as possible (volume) for as much $ possible (profit margin) over the longest time possible (lifespan of said business, a minimum to recover the money invested to start).
Ain't easy.
And non-audiophiles people are looking at us like extra-terrestrials. If you add a 100k price tag, you're just throwing yourself out of the game. Unless you have a 50-years reputation based on multi-millions invested in marketing.
In fact, non-audiophiles people (including the potential new audiophile generation) are discouraged, unimpressed and just bored to death by the lack of impressive results and quality/price ratio.
You bring your 10yo son to a car show, he will be extremely excited by the Ferraris, Porsches and Mclarens, compared to the usual Toyotas... HE WILL UNDERSTAND the huge difference between a 20k product and a 200k product.
In an audio show ?
Nope.
Excitation level at the lowest.
What's left, if not pure, provable, quality?
SPL?
You don't need big money for that... Just buy PA stuff and you're good to go.
...That market is collapsing because he has slowly cut his wrists, after being bitten by an oily snake.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.