Sorry Merrill, I knew you wouldn't like my conclusion, but you sort of insisted. This test is what it is, not what you want it to be. It will be interesting to see who else objects to my conclusion and proceeds to come up with bizarre analogies
Yes, exactly - it is what it is & the obvious problem at it's heart is plain to see to most but apparently not to you - most testers can't differentiate known audible differences as others have told you.Sorry if you can't follow through that logically?
Bizarre? I would consider it bizarre that you would draw the conclusion that those with impaired ability to differentiate known audible differences could be used to evaluate if audible differences existed in other samples?
Last edited:
I can follow that fine, but that's not what this test is about, you have been told that. Why don't you start your own thread about it?
I don't remember saying that
My conclusion from the test is that there was no general preference (for original or tube loop) and that participants were mostly unable to tell the difference in sound. This is enough to me. There are prejudices if someone hears about tubes and there are prejudices if someone see distortion plot as the one used. If this test makes some people think about such and similar prejudices, it would be enough to me.
Zacharov and Bech wrote a nice summary of the somewhat sad situation when it comes to listening evaluations:
(Bech, Søren; Zacharov, Nick (2006): Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application. )
I think it´s safe to add "audio forums" to the list.
Trying to read between the lines i got the impression that he authors seem to think that a mixture of ignorance and arrogance often leads to the mentioned underestimation of the difficulties to get high quality results from such tests. (high quality imo means _correct_ results)
(Bech, Søren; Zacharov, Nick (2006): Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application. )
I think it´s safe to add "audio forums" to the list.
Trying to read between the lines i got the impression that he authors seem to think that a mixture of ignorance and arrogance often leads to the mentioned underestimation of the difficulties to get high quality results from such tests. (high quality imo means _correct_ results)
I also conclude that Merrill and Jakob have missed the point of this thread. I further suggest they start their own thread(s) to discuss the issues they want to talk about due to them being off-topic.
So it goes, this is an open hobby forum. Rules = norules. I also do not appreciate OT, but I understand that people have to realize themselves so I do not care much.
And here's where you are trying to have your cake & eat it too. Your original statement was "The distortion caused by the circuit is of negligible consequence" which is exactly the sort of generalization that objectivists complain about when subjectivists extrapolate their listening impressions. I tried to correct it to being only specific to you but you pushed back.
At least with subjectivists impressions it's unknown if they are mistaken but with this test we know most testers can't hear known differences so your attempts to try to generalize is even more venal.
You didn't say it - you are presenting the results from testers who have demonstrated they can't differentiate known audible differences & ignoring this fact. Please take some time to think before posting.
Why don't you start your own thread about things that are OT here instead of trolling and attempting to threadjack?
If the objective of such tests is to establish some advancement towards the truth about audio & audibility then I would have presumed that flaws in tests would be just as important to point out as running the test themselves or to borrow some words from DF96 "is ABX truth?"
But if this is not the objective then fine, state this & move on instead of trying to con people that there's more to such tests than there actually is
Because misinformation is being posted which needs correcting for the benefit of all. Understanding tests & how to use them correctly, their pitfalls & issues, would, I imagine be of some consequence on DIYAudio forum?
PMA, you seemed to have crossed some personal Rubicon in understanding a little while ago but now I'm not so sure?
"Because misinformation is being posted which needs correcting for the benefit of all"
That says it all.
That says it all.
Thank you, I'm glad you understand
I'll be accompanying all the Hendersons to Pablo Fanque's Fair tonight
Thank you, I'm glad you understand
I'll be accompanying all the Hendersons to Pablo Fanque's Fair tonight
Ah, crap, they said they'd be there - now all my trampoline practice was a waste of time!