DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever

[mmerrill99]

You've got enough self righteousness to go around

There are no reasonable people on the planet. This is a tidy "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Not to mention the extreme power of influence. You hear someone call a capacitor "dark" and you buy it in the hopes it does the same in your own system, then the likelihood is you're going to hear it as "dark" too.

Am I

I'm sorry, your rant is a caricature of the testing space entirely. Double blind testing is the gold standard, and listening impressions are not for a good reason. Since you want to take the side of science, I invite you to pick one forum, bias it as heavily as you want to your side, and count the number of people influenced by badly designed DBTs versus the number of members influenced by listening impressions that are stated as fact. Pick a month or two so you don't lose your mind. Pre-describe your selection criteria and test protocols like many journals and funding agencies are demanding (best practices). I want to see the implications of "many people".

Ohhh, it's "the gold standard" - that's enough for me - you have completely convinced me & won any possible argument with that.

So individuals reports on audible characteristics and differences is reliable and yet DBT is not? Scientifically persuasive veneer indeed. You're painting yourself into a corner as an anti-DBT troll, not someone remotely interested in the truth and science. And please go ahead and find me a test where they showed that impressions are durable across a volume change.

Who said anything about sighted tests being scientific, not I - you seems to be trapped in your own desire to cling to something with the word "science" attached to it?

 

[kinsei]

How many such controls have you ever seen used or even suggested by the ABX proponents? Ever wonder why such simple test calibration is never mentioned by these proponents?

Without this self-checking control, the test is of unknown quality

to me the setup is so terribly wrong that, no matter what control you have done the result will still be same, so wrong that even trained ears wont hear it right away, this is the natural and expected result
a good control is always welcomed but not very helpful in this case
you dont use a 3.5 digit dvm to reveal the error of ultra high precision Vrefs

 

[mmerrill99]

to me the setup is so terribly wrong that, no matter what control you have done the result will still be same, so wrong that even trained ears wont hear it right away, this is the natural and expected result
a good control is always welcomed but not very helpful in this case
you dont use a 3.5 digit dvm to reveal the error of ultra high precision Vrefs

Yea, but that is opinion & some people, as evidenced here, cling to the idea that there is something of value to this pseudo-science performance art - so rather than endlessly arguing about it, let's see positive controls for any test that people want to be taken seriously.

I agree, anybody who said they measured something & then couldn't show their measurement tool was actually up to the task of what they are claiming would & should be laughed at. But when you have people trying to defend this test as a"gold standard" you realize just how biased proponents of these tests can be.

 

[Naaling]

I agree, anybody who said they measured something & then couldn't show their measurement tool was actually up to the task of what they are claiming would & should be laughed at. e.

Does that also include people who claim to hear differences in sighted conditions, and refuse to acknowledge the possible effect of expectation bias?

 

[mmerrill99]

Does that also include people who claim to hear differences in sighted conditions, and refuse to acknowledge the possible effect of expectation bias?

Nobody tried to claim that sighted listening is a test or a measurement, a "gold standard" or anything 'sciency' - it's simply an opinion.

People need to get over their what-about-ism & accept that this blind test is indefensible as anything but pseudo-science performance art.

 

[scottjoplin]

I would like at this point to recommend the following thread for your delectation Are you hung up?

 

[Naaling]

Nobody tried to claim that sighted listening is a test or a measurement, a "gold standard" or anything 'sciency' - it's simply an opinion.

People need to get over their what-about-ism & accept that this blind test is indefensible as anything but pseudo-science performance art.

But when they express an opinion, and then treat it as a fact that everyone is required to accept, without any evidence, they move into an entirely different realm.

In the test 4 apparently normal people listened to two DACs , one 100 times the price of the other, and couldn't hear any difference. That is a fact, an actual event. Now you can blame the methodology all you like, and clearly it was lacking, but there will always be the possibility that there actually was no audible difference in that context.

By the way your get over it comment is a classic response from people who have had their false propositions exposed. they have no depth of argument to fall back on.

 

[mmerrill99]

But when they express an opinion, and then treat it as a fact that everyone is required to accept, without any evidence, they move into an entirely different realm.

Yea, they are never challenged, are they? And we all go running out to buy the components/devices that are mentioned. It's scary how much control these reports have over us - keeps me awake at night

In the test 4 apparently normal people listened to two DACs , one 100 times the price of the other, and couldn't hear any difference. That is a fact, an actual event. Now you can blame the methodology all you like, and clearly it was lacking, but there will always be the possibility that there actually was no audible difference in that context.

Of course there is that possibility & that could have been stated before this performance art - this 'test' brought absolutely nothing extra to our ability to address that possibility

By the way your get over it comment is a classic response from people who have had their false propositions exposed. they have no depth of argument to fall back on.

Oh, you mean my reference to your what-about-ism?
Please elaborate on exactly what "false propositions" of mine have been "exposed"?

 

[Naaling]

Yea, they are never challenged, are they? And we all go running out to buy the components/devices that are mentioned. It's scary how much control these reports have over us - keeps me awake at night

Of course there is that possibility & that could have been stated before this performance art - this 'test' brought absolutely nothing extra to our ability to address that possibility


Oh, you mean my reference to your what-about-ism?
Please elaborate on exactly what "false propositions" of mine have been "exposed"?

When seriously challenged the veneer of pseudo-scientific confidence crumbles. Now we are reduced to cynicism and sarcasm.

 

[mmerrill99]

When seriously challenged the veneer of pseudo-scientific confidence crumbles. Now we are reduced to cynicism and sarcasm.

If you could "seriously challenge" anything I said that would be refreshing.
I already asked you to "elaborate on exactly what "false propositions" of mine have been "exposed" but you dodge answering this.

 

[Guho]

But when they express an opinion, and then treat it as a fact that everyone is required to accept, without any evidence, they move into an entirely different realm.

In the test 4 apparently normal people listened to two DACs , one 100 times the price of the other, and couldn't hear any difference. That is a fact, an actual event. Now you can blame the methodology all you like, and clearly it was lacking, but there will always be the possibility that there actually was no audible difference in that context.

By the way your get over it comment is a classic response from people who have had their false propositions exposed. they have no depth of argument to fall back on.

Talking about facts?

It's also a fact that the setup is a low-end setup: high jitter and bad power regulation with a high noise floor and high ps jitter as input to the DAC is the worst possible start.. and a weak amp in the end as the output is a bad output.

So when you add a DAC in the middle of that weak setup; an expensive high end or weak low end DAC; the output would be the same; all bad! Because you're upconverting a lowend signal to a highend/lowend DAC. Don't you understand that fact? It doesn't make sense at all to do a listening test in that scenario.

If I sat in that room then I would expect that I also couldn't hear the difference between that cheap and expensive DAC. This since the whole setup is low-end. That's a fact too and that's the most important fact here!

 

[Bigun]

if swapping btwn high/low end dac makes no audible diff, this is a strong signal suggesting the presence of bottlenecks
...

Indeed - and what we want to understand is if this bottleneck is ourselves. That part of the chain is hard to upgrade so we may as well stop worrying about the DAC and the need for upgrading the other parts of the chain.

 

[Naaling]

If you could "seriously challenge" anything I said that would be refreshing.
I already asked you to "elaborate on exactly what "false propositions" of mine have been "exposed" but you dodge answering this.

Add arrogance to cynicism and sarcasm!
Didn't you dodge answering my question in post #1804, by going off on a meaningless tangent?
My guess its the question you are most desperate to avoid answering, and that's why we have to endure all this long winded pseud-scientific mumbo-jumbo, that has been set up as a diversionary tactic, to avoid focusing on the real issue.

 

[scottjoplin]

This kind of bickering is exactly why the thread was anaesthetised

 

[Naaling]

Talking about facts?

It's also a fact that the setup is a low-end setup: high jitter and bad power regulation with a high noise floor and high ps jitter as input to the DAC is the worst possible start.. and a weak amp in the end as the output is a bad output.

So when you add a DAC in the middle of that weak setup; an expensive high end or weak low end DAC; the output would be the same; all bad! Because you're upconverting a lowend signal to a highend/lowend DAC. Don't you understand that fact? It doesn't make sense at all to do a listening test in that scenario.

If I sat in that room then I would expect that I also couldn't hear the difference between that cheap and expensive DAC. This since the whole setup is low-end. That's a fact too and that's the most important fact here!

All of this covered by my words "in that context".

 

[mmerrill99]

Add arrogance to cynicism and sarcasm!
Didn't you dodge answering my question in post #1804, by going off on a meaningless tangent?

So you make claims that I dodged your question:

"Does that also include people who claim to hear differences in sighted conditions, and refuse to acknowledge the possible effect of expectation bias?"
Nobody tried to claim that sighted listening is a test or a measurement, a "gold standard" or anything 'sciency' - it's simply an opinion.
​

If you can explain what you don't understand about the answer, I will try to help.

My guess its the question you are most desperate to avoid answering, and that's why we have to endure all this long winded pseud-scientific mumbo-jumbo, that has been set up as a diversionary tactic, to avoid focusing on the real issue.

And the real issue is .................. does DAC A sound different to DAC B

Are you trying to defend that this test somehow answers this question or adds anything of worth?

Please answer this & the other questions I have already asked & you avoid

 

[Duke58]

Believe me- I'm not going to go buy a DAC or not buy a DAC based on opinions.

But- I do appreciate someone doing this type of testing and posting their results. As an engineer- we work off test data and information. With audio, it's more subjective than objective, so personal taste comes into play. That's why so many equipment companies exist in the world.

If you think you have the best gear you can get- enjoy!

Life is too short to spend being upset, frustrated and angry. If you want proof, go get in your car and take a drive in a big city. Those are mostly people who think they own the lane, the street because they believe they paid more than everybody else.

I'm going to relax, have a home-brew, listen to some beautiful music on what some consider a shitty system. It's all mine and it sounds beautiful to me.

 

[mmerrill99]

Believe me- I'm not going to go buy a DAC or not buy a DAC based on opinions.

Totally agree - one's own opinion after suitable auditioning is what really matters. Others listening impressions/opinions act only as pointers to what might be worth personally auditioning - same with purchases of other consumer products - we research opinion & measurements before shortlisting those we want to try.

 

[Mark Whitney]

No-one's talked about extreme conditions.

Basic logic of test set-up is what Guho was talking about..

So far it has been suggested that the test should have been performed with
1. Tube Set amplifier. 2. High-end amplifier. 3. Better speakers.

While listening to: 1. Tracks that have non-music, like rain, thunder, running water, ocean waves, paddling canoe etc.. 2. Music that can push the limits of the system (Wagner's Tannhäuser Overture). 3. Listening carefully to undistorted hi-res source material containing cymbal hits.

If any of the above is the norm for you then I don't see a problem.
One of my favourite test discs is this one. It has most of the above.

 

[DPH]

Who said anything about sighted tests being scientific, not I - you seems to be trapped in your own desire to cling to something with the word "science" attached to it?

I work in medicine. Like, as an academic. So I've bet my life on the topic of science and trying to develop diagnostics that might ultimately help you. We pay REALLY CLOSE ATTENTION to things like ROC's because when a disease state is really rare, the false positive rate swamps the real disease. Find me a better, more robust method than a RCT, which is inherently double blinded. A lot of times we have to choose other study methodologies due to, well, reality (I'll happily quote the gravitational challenge with/without parachute RCT mock paper in BMJ if you need it), but RCT remains the "gold standard" of testing when we can get it. In many ways my hero is John Ioannidis.

There is a large body of "alternative medicine" types that rely on undermining robust double blind testing in the same vein as you're trying to here, while simultaneously propose "personal impressions as valuable". You want to tell me the badly done pseudoscientific studies within the alt-med and supplements industries haven't done HUGE damage? Those studies are magically NEVER null. How about the word of mouth recommendation that pervades that world? And, no, but, but Vioxx isn't an excuse, as that needs to be remembered profoundly.

Now, in a LOT of ways human testing, especially for subjective markers, has a lot in common, so I port what I know from clinical trials over. When your entire posting history, and I'm remembering your extremely shady argument techniques and then profound misunderstanding of experimental design in a certain opamp thread, is essentially anti-ABX with no positive statements made, you don't seem at all like a rational person, and certainly not someone interested in the truth.

I learn a ton from Jakob, especially when we disagree and I have to double check things I'm saying. Cannot say the same with you.