And that is really different in the case of two DACs (measured numbers below the known threshold of hearing -single parameter wise) if the controlled listening experiment gives a positive result?
Obviously you considered "no peeking" as not sufficient (which is btw an understandable point of view) back then and i have my doubts that it really has changed.
No, no dossier, otherwise i maybe might have had another more recent example and of course i pointed it out to you at the time (if "this" meant the interpretation to the disadvantage of the authors).
No relevance. As you should know people tend to post on side topics that occur in these threads, you and me are no exceptions.
That you got right.
That you got wrong wrt the topic.
No, but there is nothing wrong with concrete evidence and results, either.
I have to say Jakob that reading your posts here and in other threads is often an exercise in frustration. It's clear that you have an agenda, but often hard to tell what it is. You post detailed criticisms of other people and their ideas, and yet all I ever get from your posts is some vague and repeated feeling that you don't agree with conventional audio practices and tests. Your arguments seem to be just for the sake it, with a "conventional audio wisdom is wrong" flavoring.
Certainly that's not your goal. But it all comes across more like molasses than sunshine.
Yes, but we must remember that scientists are human and so subject to human weaknesses.Jakob2 said:
If a discussion takes place strictly on the grounds of evidence and reasoned argument from that evidence then you are right, but most humans cannot do this for any extended period of time; many cannot do it at all. Hence sometimes we have to reach a conclusion about the likely truth of a statement by who said it and why they said it - in a sense we act as a jury member rather than as a mere processor of argument.
I cannot independently verify the truth of every statement made here by everyone. Some I know from previous knowledge to be true. Some I know to be false. Many I don't know and I have insufficient time (and interest) to investigate all of them; I only investigate the ones which intrigue me. Hence I sometimes have to jump to a conclusion, based on my previous experience of the subject matter ('does it sound right') and/or my previous experience of that person (' does he normally talk sense'). I suspect I am not the only one who has to adopt this less than purely logical position. Hence it is helpful to know where someone is coming from.
What do you do about standing waves, comb filtering effects,... etc., however large?
What do you do about your mood, barometer, humidity, room temperature, however little?
You can find out about it by experimenting on your own or observe others who have done it.
Including the one who criticized others of posting side topics.
First of all, the thread topic is about "what kind of evidence do you consider as sufficient", i fail to understand why noone of you starts a new thread to discuss the realization of a controlled listening test of whatever DUTs.
Further, what question/hypothesis do you want to address?
Scott Wurcer mentioned that he thought this thread must be about DACs as the other "Jon Boncani thread" was about DACs, but that does not really help, as the lack of a clearly expressed hypothesis was one of the problems over there.
Everything is easy for the man who don´t have to do the work.....
Oh, I forgot that there is a business interest involved.
Last edited:
^ x2, and Mr Anti-Squarewave is willfully ignorant the actual research into human preference/limits of detection. Actually belligerently ignorant.
I don't think the present line of thinking about employers is helpful, and I find people are taking personally parts that are more of an intellectual/academic line of thinking. I've had to take a step back from what Jakob's said on a few occasions to get at what he's trying to say. (Communication breakdowns? Impossible!)
I don't think the present line of thinking about employers is helpful, and I find people are taking personally parts that are more of an intellectual/academic line of thinking. I've had to take a step back from what Jakob's said on a few occasions to get at what he's trying to say. (Communication breakdowns? Impossible!)
Last edited:
I have a blind listening procedure I use for myself when I want to do that. It is a good thing to do if differences are less than obvious, especially depending on the nature of perceived differences. But like anyone else, I have some tendency to think it not necessary when differences are plainly obvious. There is of course a potential trap there, and it is part of the risks we have to deal with, being human.
I did do a bit of blind testing in the three way dac comparisons I did recently. Memorizing which one is which of the ES9038Q2M dacs can be hard when ear fatigue sets in. The DAC-3 is generally obviously different and better. It could only be confused for the other two if one had been listening way too loud.
In other words, any perceived differences always tend to seem plainly obvious when sighted, that tends to be the case for humans in general. Those here who think they never misjudge when listening sighted might be in for a big and potentially embarrassing surprise someday.
I did do a bit of blind testing in the three way dac comparisons I did recently. Memorizing which one is which of the ES9038Q2M dacs can be hard when ear fatigue sets in. The DAC-3 is generally obviously different and better. It could only be confused for the other two if one had been listening way too loud.
In other words, any perceived differences always tend to seem plainly obvious when sighted, that tends to be the case for humans in general. Those here who think they never misjudge when listening sighted might be in for a big and potentially embarrassing surprise someday.
Agreed.
Be assured that i´m also quite often frustrated when forced to start at zero and to repeat again and again informations that actually should be common knowledge after all these years. That´s no critic on new members but a lot are participating in these threads for years (as you´ve obviously noticed).
It´s imo quite easy; doing controlled listening tests is serving no self-purpose, the goal is to get usefull results, which means to get _correct_results wrt the objective of the test.
So the information should help anybody interested in such tests to do better than just following the old routine, that is associated with higher risks to commit errors
And in a miraculous way you somehow manage to neglect the concrete informations in my posts?! It could be a hint to a bias....
In fact members of this forum were able to maintain the fiction i never had proposed a "concrete" positive control idea although i directly told them in answers. Obviously that´s the way it works in "religious" like discussions.
It seems that you´re waiting for cooking like recipes for contolled listening tests while i think the main problem is that people were actually following "blindly" a recipe for the last ~40years, without noticing the pitfalls of the method.
Normally you should imo ask yourself why you don´t get the same informations from the people who demand/suggest blindtests in quite a lot of threads across forums.......
Apparently they don´t care, but it seems to be much easier to critisize me....
Last edited:
It is common though. What is wrong BTW in criticizing research that can't be reproduced?
Wouldn't it depend on the facts and the nature of the criticism? What if research couldn't be reproduced because the single effort to do so failed to get necessary funding? That would be very different than saying particular research could not be replicated despite multiple published efforts to do so. That latter might simply be a statement of fact, and not necessarily criticism at all.
Normally you should imo ask yourself why you don´t get the same informations from the people who demand/suggest blindtests in quite a lot of threads across forums.......
Apparently they don´t care, but it seems to be much easier to critisize me....
Maybe because that's the industry accepted way (you're focusing on blind again) if that's part of your agenda just state it, it's OK.
Information for instance...
http://www.denismartin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Martin-et-al.pdf
The people involved here seem to be making an honest effort to address some of the same AB - ABX issues.
Last edited:
I already showed the EBU files were undithered 16 bit, which I know will thrill you.
Yes, after years of asking, begging, moaning, etc... you pulled that 0.2dB level difference as an example of "positive control".
Without providing any kind of reference (ahem, "authoritative"), without any examples of peer reviewed and accepted successful tests, or comparative study (with/without), without any kind of phenomenological or statistical justification (why using +/-0.2dB and not a bandwidth variation? why not +/-0.1dB or +/-1dB? how to decide the magnitude?), without any use case analysis (you were point blank asked to discuss the 4 cases, all combinations of listening test with "positive control" test results, conclusions and follow-up actions, and your silence was deafening), without any reference or indication on how these "positive controls" would affect the sample size, etc... You produced only fluff, semantic arguments, deflections, the whole shebang.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.