Blind tests should be performed by blind people. They are not blinded by blings and brands, and have better focus on hearing.
Last edited:
I just take it on trust that the setup was as described and all drivers were the same degree of 'flat' within the test bandpass. Much of the debate appears to centre on the thread title. 'Stripped of their primary audible differentiators some drivers sound similar in an afternoon's well controlled listening' doesn't have the same ring. Where measurements might provide some value is understanding the test sensitivity. For example since the bandpass was actively implemented each driver should display a unique distortion profile wide out in the open above the top frequency limit. Differences in equalization could also point to limits of trial sensitivity.
An unintended consequence may underpin accepting these results as a evidence of the 'woo-woo-ness' of boutique or over engineered drivers. The foundations for the conclusion are universal. If frequency response is dominant over all other metrics, including distortion profiles and all remaining ineffable unknowns, what does this mean for amplification? Seems irrational to drop so much money on a boring silver cube of Hypex when the cheaper Dyna ST-70 glows so pretty.
Amplifications falls into the same group as the D/A converters and Cables... No serious ABX blindtest have ever show you can get a positive identification, unless faulty (not a flat FR, noisy) or misused (clipping).
I don't really like the idea of having no EQ and, even worst, different Xover points (that big 12'' woofer-mid switching from 1khz to 3khz, depending on the tweeter? really?)...
But... If the goal is to (finally) start a BT with a threshold, then I agree. Let's start with something that should be so obvious that ''we cannot fail''. And, as you say, if detection is positive we move to the next level.
But first, let's agree on a positive identification regarding ''obvious'' stuff: are we seeking for the bare minimum statistical value of 17/20 or are we looking for 20/20?
The differences between driver distortion profiles in this test are reasonably expected to swamp those between quite a wide range of amplifier types. What does it imply for the audibility of the last ~60+ years of audio electronics development? Nothing more than increased power output, reduced consumption and bragging rights?
If seeking for a threshold is the goal, then we should start by having the tweeter sitting on the floor. I'm barely exaggerating.
It is a constant in all BT; we overestimate the hearing capacity and then we have to reorganize the test to find a threshold. It would be good, for once, to start directly with 20/20 and then slowly climb towards a set-up that more reflects audiophile reality. In an ideal world, we would have an evolution in results; from one set-up (or more) 20/20 to, say, 18/20, then 15/10, then the 10/20 (unable-to-identify point).
I would like to witness an evolution towards nuances, for once. The first BT with MP3/24/96HD gave us a little of that but barely.
Correct me if I'm wrong but serious studies were made about the psycho-acoustics effects related to distortion -amplifiers and/or transducers- most probably those can be found on AES website:
Publications | Audio Engineering Society
If my memory is good, the human ear can ''tolerate'' (which means won't detect) high levels of distortion on the lower frequencies but is more sensible to distortion in the higher frequencies, but still pretty forgiving...
I am not very interested to test harmonic distortion per se, since we need to find a threshold first. And that threshold could be about anything, not just HD.
Sure, it's good to see you're agreeing that there needs to be a shared baffle, or in this case floor, placement.
FWIW, I don't disagree with the rest of your post. Merely your need to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Which, if anything, is the online audiophile community status quo.
Last edited:
Isn't that what a test that eliminates FR and dispersion variances examines? HD + anything else? If those thresholds are demonstrated to be below audibility in this test then logically they should be between amplifiers displaying the same variances. Which are presumably wide.
Last edited:
Quid?
First, I never agreed on the need for a shared baffle. What if we can't get a positive ID in a set-up without shared baffle?
Finding a threshold requires being in a mindset where you don't assume anything.
...And I'm sure not assuming that 2 tweeters on different baffles will be distinguishable (because of the baffles)...
But, when Tomahack suggests to start with different xover points, I'm skeptical. I think that would be a total lost of time and energy because we will spot in a blink of an eye a 12' woofer-mid that emits up to 3khz v.s. 1khz... BUT I do like the idea of finally having something very obvious, as a baseline.
But the shared baffle?? Would bet on a positive ID solely on that.
...and I'm writing it and I think it would just apply to nearfield. Maybe, MAYBE, it won't be distinguishable if the distance from the listener is great enough.
we didnt eliminate FR entirely, as the EQ for each drivers, made in the pre-test, was not made more precise later on. Which simply means the human ear is sensitive to FR up to a certain point.
According to my observations, the bare minimum differential detectable is 0.3db and 1/6 octave (@ 48db/oct slope), and that's only in a nose-bleeding focused listening session.
It can go up to 1,5-2.0db differential before being able to detect anything, especially if the bandwith is narrower than 1/2 octave.
Market plot
😀
I got it. JonBocani is manipulating the exchange market to make a financial operation !
The next and last step of this clever plan will be seen in this thread to come :
"BlindTest: EQ device 300$ to 7000$, No audible difference whatsover" 😛
Jon... give me back the pinot noir and the MiniDSP % you bought last years ! 😀
(FWIW, always liked Jb's threads and their patriot rebell tone about the Driver-Sans-Nom 🙂 )
😀
I got it. JonBocani is manipulating the exchange market to make a financial operation !
The next and last step of this clever plan will be seen in this thread to come :
"BlindTest: EQ device 300$ to 7000$, No audible difference whatsover" 😛
Jon... give me back the pinot noir and the MiniDSP % you bought last years ! 😀
(FWIW, always liked Jb's threads and their patriot rebell tone about the Driver-Sans-Nom 🙂 )
eh, funny story about wine blind testing... I never organized an ABX identification BT about wine, because, you know, we just want to keep everything pleasant.. 😉
BUT, once, I put the same bottle TWICE.
So we had a total of 6 bottles in testing, but only 5 different.
Guess what? Yup. One bottle had a better average note than the other, which was the very same vintage, at the same temperature, opened a the same time.
and nobody even noticed that two wines tasted exactly the same. They all thought it was just all different wines.
BUT, once, I put the same bottle TWICE.
So we had a total of 6 bottles in testing, but only 5 different.
Guess what? Yup. One bottle had a better average note than the other, which was the very same vintage, at the same temperature, opened a the same time.
and nobody even noticed that two wines tasted exactly the same. They all thought it was just all different wines.
if you pinch the nose and blind the glass : no one could tell you the difference, it's a funny thing to test 🙂... it's also eay to trap first class somelier sometimes if he doesn't see the color of the wine 😉
tips : you want to reset ypur mouth taste factory with 2.3 minutes between each drink ! Opening at the same time the bottle if they last more than 30 minutes makes no sense. Oxydation changes it very fast when you're trained...anyway if you drink it without spit it, no one is a specialist anymore after few glass 😀
And yes my hifi sounds better after a bottle of red wine
tips : you want to reset ypur mouth taste factory with 2.3 minutes between each drink ! Opening at the same time the bottle if they last more than 30 minutes makes no sense. Oxydation changes it very fast when you're trained...anyway if you drink it without spit it, no one is a specialist anymore after few glass 😀
And yes my hifi sounds better after a bottle of red wine
Last edited:
Ok then. Challenge accepted.
I will start my little homemade informal (haters, be quiet!) pre-test, using this:
- RAAL 64-10 on his own baffle, which is as the picture: screwed on the corner of the woofmid enclosure.
- Faital 3fe22 in his own enclosure, positioned aside the 64-10 as close as possible
- Both highpassed 3khz @ 48db/oct butterworth
- The 64-10 with the EQ that matches the woofmid
- The 3fe22 without any EQ (plain natural FR)
- Both SPL-matched (the un-EQd 3fe22 on his peak)
- Both using the same amplifier, but each on their own channel
- Left + Right signal routing
So, scenario #1: I cannot get a positive ID of 20/20, then I will either try to move away the 3fe22, or I will get my ears checked for the third time, or I will open a bottle of single malt whisky.
Scenario #2: I get a positive result 20/20, then I EQ the 3fe22, obviously, then I go through another round.
...and I will not speculate on the scenarios after that, and don't even mention your Beyma tweeter or the compression, por favor. 🙄
To be honest, after nearly 500 posts on this thread, which illustrates nothing that isn't well-known to those familiar with basic acoustics*, and in which you have admitted to lax proceedure, and not bothering to keep results, I'd be surprised if many people give a toss.
* i.e. under on-axis nearfield conditions, carefully controlled to ensure HD and polar performance are excluded, frequency response dominates perception.
* i.e. under on-axis nearfield conditions, carefully controlled to ensure HD and polar performance are excluded, frequency response dominates perception.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.