Maxwell's demon ! Exactly the situation at issue here, well trodden but seductive enigma until the answer is revealed......
The most amazing thing about the Bybee devices is how they fascinate grown men who should know better.
Over 420 posts in this new thread alone. The Bybee IS a powerful device! Look what it's done to you.
Over 420 posts in this new thread alone. The Bybee IS a powerful device! Look what it's done to you.
Actually, I think there's nothing in our science that says this is not possible - it just isn't possible without putting energy in the process (which then defeats the purpose).
Jan
Perhaps it's not the device itself, rather what it might reveal about human nature that is naturally fascinating ?
I think that certainly is part of it. We all have heard about unscrupulous hucksters but not many have actually met them in their own backyard, so to speak 😉
an
Carlstrom, Greenhill, Krueger, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82.
I call slight foul as Krueger has admitted they knew the D120 misbehaved on the test speakers before they assembled the test.
But that's the sort of thing which distinguishes one amp from another. I think it's perfectly legitimate, just like using an amp with high-ish output impedance on a speaker with a variation in impedance, compared to an amp with low source impedance.
But it's no longer double blind if you know what 3 amps are being tested and that one issues a 'crack' on peaks?
One feels tongue was firmly in cheek at the minimum 🙂
One feels tongue was firmly in cheek at the minimum 🙂
As long as no-one in the room knows which amp is which on switching, it absolutely is double blind. Analogously, I may know that Amp A has a source impedance of 3 ohms, and amps B and C have source impedances of less than 0.1 ohm, and the loudspeaker has a dip to 2 ohms in the midrange, but that doesn't change the question of whether I can distinguish them in a DBT. This was stuff that was important to do 35 years ago to establish what was and wasn't audible in amp designs. Nowadays, we know quite well what people can and can't hear, so these kinds of tests are just sideshows, but there was an actual debate back in the 70s and 80s that had to be resolved.
True, but alternatively, this forum is knee deep in people maintaining they hear a difference that magically disappears in a test.
This was a test that confirmed DB what they heard sighted. Nothing wrong with that I believe - on the contrary, that is how it should be done.
Jan
Ah, that was my confusion. If the test had been titled 'can you hear a fault we have all heard before in blind testing' I would have not raised an eyebrow. It was because they said ' can you hear the difference between 3 amplifiers' when they knew full well what to listen for that made me think they had too much information.
As an Editor, I can confirm that article titles serve the dual purpose of a) describing the article content, and b) attracting readers.
Sometimes b) wins out over a) - I agree that in this case the title could have been more accurate.
Jan
Yes, that's the easy approach: simply stress the amplifier, and system with volume and the right recordings until the flaws of a particular unit, and configuration become very obvious, then the characteristic signatures of misbehaviour can be followed back and identified in normal playback situations. If a blind testing setup doesn't allow one to put the units under enough pressure to make them misbehave then the chances are very high that differences won't be heard.
Last edited:
I kinda like the idea of putting the pressure on the listeners and not allowing them to misbehave.
Amplifiers get very stressed during DBT, as they are afraid that their true nature will be revealed. This can lead to misbehaviour, as in "I am not going to play that excerpt for the 23rd time (stamps feet, waggles heatsinks, shakes crystals off top and onto floor)".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.