You or anyone can implement quick switching between things that are compared without penalty. It doesn't have to be for the objective of differences of practical relevance. Heck, it can even be for the centerfolds of some girly magazine.
Well, my experience is that audio products do not always sound the same, but those that are well designed and constructed sound very, very good in our modern world. I am not swayed by reviewers' opinions in subjective tests and I want to see measured results performed competently, covering parameters outside the normal suite if something in that normal suite raises an eyebrow.
That too is rarely done by reviews online or in print as they prefer a set of results that can be compared to other products, so the set is generally limited to a standard regimen. Also measurement procedures are not trivial and in many cases without experience the tech may not know how to perform a test that is out of his regular procedure.
As for Unsighted Double-Blind Listening tests (UDBT), when performed competently over a large enough subject group ... something that is both expensive and time consuming to perform, and is not as common as one might think from all the reports out there* ... they have value, but no more or no less than the other ways we assess sound quality.
And finally I trust my own judgement, not the judgement of others. So suppose there was a product that scored excellently on all three of the above (subjective listening by reviewers, objective measurement by a competent technician, and a properly conducted Unsighted Double Blind Test with trained listeners that resulted in satisfied consensus) at that point I want to hear it for myself.
When all four forms of "evidence" cross-correlate and check all the right boxes, then I consider all four to be valid. If my own listening doesn't cross-correlate, then I want to know why and might seek out more evidence to understand what seems to be wrong.
Sometimes that missing part can only be discovered in concert with long term listening, which is both the final judge and the vehicle that points to what might be wrong (or sometimes what is unusually right).
From there further evidence must be gathered ... why did the subjective reviewer not hear what I heard, why did the testing not reveal an issue, and what is it about the DBT that masked the problem.
* A recent Unsighted (which is mandatory) DBT of DACs via headphones performed at RMAF 18 took two people almost a week, another most of a day to compile results, involved only 40 listeners who each invested six hours of their own time, and although 10 DACs were available, there was only enough equipment and time to allow each listener an auditon of four of the ten candidates. The cost of test equipment and the cost of shipping / time spent preparing is not included in the above.
That too is rarely done by reviews online or in print as they prefer a set of results that can be compared to other products, so the set is generally limited to a standard regimen. Also measurement procedures are not trivial and in many cases without experience the tech may not know how to perform a test that is out of his regular procedure.
As for Unsighted Double-Blind Listening tests (UDBT), when performed competently over a large enough subject group ... something that is both expensive and time consuming to perform, and is not as common as one might think from all the reports out there* ... they have value, but no more or no less than the other ways we assess sound quality.
And finally I trust my own judgement, not the judgement of others. So suppose there was a product that scored excellently on all three of the above (subjective listening by reviewers, objective measurement by a competent technician, and a properly conducted Unsighted Double Blind Test with trained listeners that resulted in satisfied consensus) at that point I want to hear it for myself.
When all four forms of "evidence" cross-correlate and check all the right boxes, then I consider all four to be valid. If my own listening doesn't cross-correlate, then I want to know why and might seek out more evidence to understand what seems to be wrong.
Sometimes that missing part can only be discovered in concert with long term listening, which is both the final judge and the vehicle that points to what might be wrong (or sometimes what is unusually right).
From there further evidence must be gathered ... why did the subjective reviewer not hear what I heard, why did the testing not reveal an issue, and what is it about the DBT that masked the problem.
* A recent Unsighted (which is mandatory) DBT of DACs via headphones performed at RMAF 18 took two people almost a week, another most of a day to compile results, involved only 40 listeners who each invested six hours of their own time, and although 10 DACs were available, there was only enough equipment and time to allow each listener an auditon of four of the ten candidates. The cost of test equipment and the cost of shipping / time spent preparing is not included in the above.
Last edited:
@Johnny2Bad
"(subjective listening by reviewers, objective measurement by a competent technician, and a Double Blind Test with trained listeners that resulted in satisfied consensus) at that point I want to hear it for myself."
I believe the DBT in this 3 point cross-correlation never happens so you will never get to your own evaluation but given this proviso, I agree with your approach
"(subjective listening by reviewers, objective measurement by a competent technician, and a Double Blind Test with trained listeners that resulted in satisfied consensus) at that point I want to hear it for myself."
I believe the DBT in this 3 point cross-correlation never happens so you will never get to your own evaluation but given this proviso, I agree with your approach
Haha, you had no question worth expending energy on answering that I remember.
So if you can't specify such a definition of what's audible your & waly's premise is without foundation
An useless attempt to stir the pot.
I am talking (and I suspect you know it) about "I can hear a difference between mains cable A and mains cable B", "99.999999% pure silver wire is, sound wise, so much better than ordinary copper", "Bybees have improved my system sound, the silence is now black", "I can hear the effect of my new myrtle block raisers", "after rolling the opamp X the bass is so much better", etc... If you think it's worth debating, spending money and designing experiments to prove (or disprove) such stances, then please go ahead and do it; my life is to short to waste it on such junk. Let everybody know when you have anything worth reporting and don't forget to mention examples of positive controls in a difference test; I'm waiting for this well defended and apparently priceless piece of information for years now.
You decide what question are worth expending energy, how convenient is that? On the same note, I will call your question stupid and ignorant, any problems with that?
Please show me rigorous examples of any testing (caps, DAC's, wires, etc.). The groundswell is usually called metadata consisting of undocumented and unverified anecdotes and somehow it has weight in certain peoples eyes.
Read some of the prosaic litanies of dozens of different capacitor "sounds", do you really want to defend this process?
Sure, it's my energy to expend so I decide what to expend it on - to do otherwise would be idiotic.
Ok, so you can't or don't want to specify the thresholds of audibility - fine with me. Calling it stupid & ignorant would seem to be hyperbole, no?
The point was made that DBTs can be done over months & I asked for an example of such.
IMO, your post has zero relevance to what I asked.
Changing the focus on the fly, from "Can you show the definitive graph that defines the audibility of sound as defined by "physics and science, as we know it for centuries" to "specify the thresholds of audibility" is a known deflection tactics. Otherwise, sure, it's my energy to expend so I decide what to expend it on - to do otherwise would be idiotic, isn't it?
And no, it was not intended as a hyperbole. You are so in collision with any logic principles and conversation rules, that it is almost fascinating. Go ahead, there's not much left to reach the sublime, Alfred Jarry, Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco would be proud of you.
The interesting part was the "over physics and science" assertion.......
Try to think about the models that are involved in your argument; measurements alone usually can´t show that "no audible difference to our ears" exists. Maybe if you could show that the transfer function of two DUTs are exactly the same you´d have a point but in reality they aren´t identical.
So you have to use a model of our hearing sense and you might conclude that your model leads to the _prediction_ that a difference will/should be not detectable by human listeners. That´s a valid hypothesis that can be tested.
But it is just that a hypothesis, and therefore i ask why the opposite hypothesis "a difference can be detected by (at least one) human listener" should be considered as "over physics and science".
Beside "rocket science" everything else isn´t "rocket science" , does it means something can´t be a complex matter ?
And please be more specific, what does "a claimant can identify the component...." mean? What about the level of significance required? What about replications required? What about the sample size you would like to see?
Do you not think
"definitive graph that defines the audibility of sound as defined by "physics and science, as we know it for centuries" is equivalent to "specify the thresholds of audibility"?
How do you find the two different?
Answer whichever one you prefer if you find them different/confusing
Glad you are fascinated by my posts & happy to be named in such esteemed company As Beckett & Ionesco although I never heard of Jarry
I was just about to say elements of this discussion are pataphysical, so you have channeled its essence without benefit of the source?
All I see being done here & throughout this thread, is a refusal to address any points raised rather attempts at ad-hom attacks on the poster - sad!
Let me state it more clearly, this kind of testing is not easy and there is little for the current industry to gain from it. I have yet to see any credible testing from either "side" on most of these issues. Keep it simple <$300 DAC's vs >$2000 DAC's all casual, undocumented, etc. in general on both sides (with a bit of industry sales talk on the side). Please wake me when THX does 100's of man hours of DBT's and de-certifies any hardware <$1000. This discussion is certified NO_FUN, Iggy would approve.
How does Nelson's posse stay out of these discussions? I've been playing with his auto-transformer as gain element and it is rife with strange problems subtle inaccuracies, etc. but a fun diversion, and no A/B/X necessary.
You need to review the meaning of ad-hom BTW. Pataphysics is a set of ideas not a person.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.