A summary:
The OP has repeated a pattern than began over two years ago, soon after he joined the forum.
In a serial fashion, he:
Professes an a priori view that there are big sonic differences between different models of audio product “N”;
Undertakes an ABX test to find the truth about the “scientific” or “statistical” realities of any potential audibility differences;
Reports his “SHOCK” that the “test” reveals “NO audible differences”, but, since it was “scientific”, concludes that there can be no audible differences;
Ignores postings to the thread pointing out that the ABX approach will almost always find no audible differences;
Rails against the rampant “mumbo jumbo” sales pitches put forth by the “snake oil”-pushing audio industry;
Posits that higher end audio makers have enjoyed very lucrative business, for decades, based not on sound quality but hype, since he believes and has “proven” that audible differences are completely illusory. The market is made up of charlatan audio makers/sellers and the wealthy, easily-fooled boobs that they dupe.;
Promises to do more ABX “testing”.
……………………
Professes an a priori that there are big sonic differences between models of audio product “N+1”;
Rinse and repeat.
It is hard to understand the OP’s serial “shock” when his ABX “test” shows, yet again, that there are no audible differences.
If, over, and over, the OP “disproves” the view he asserted regarding audibility differences, you would think he would reconsider using the ABX approach or maybe check into the theory/evidence against the basic validity of it. Instead, he concurrently repeats his view that the industry is full of BS, while professing anew his view that the next ABX “test” will actually show a difference.
Is he sincere? Short memory? Hard to understand.
No. I haven't done research on the history of classical mechanics, yet I still believe Newton's Laws of Motions are correct within their domain of applicability.Doppler9000 said:
No, on the contrary, the results I agree with are those found by ears-only tests. There is no law of physics which says that a $30 DAC should sound the same as a $3000 DAC, so a priori I have no assumption. I suspect that some here disapprove of ABX because it generates results they disagree with - with possible financial implications for a few.
Logic is not the issue. Assertions of alleged truth are the issue. It seems wise to me to judge the truth of what someone says by their occupation. I don't trust used-car salesmen, insurance salesmen or bankers. I am suspicious about anyone trying to sell me something - some of them are surprised to find how much background reading I do as they are not used to potential customers who answer back.
If that is what he has done then of course it casts doubt on his claims, and I would have been mistaken in defending his motives.Doppler9000 said:
However, that (if true) would not be proof of the alternative view offered by his critics.
Changing the subject slightly, it has been suggested that I assume that all audo salesmen are snake oil merchants. This is not true. I think it is useful to distinguish between snake oil and other false claims. The claim that a $5000 DAC will sound better than a $500 DAC (or $50) may or may not be true but it is not a ridiculous claim; a priori it could perhaps be true, although only good tests will tell. The claim that a $500 cable will sound better than a $10 cable cannot be true; it is a ridiculous claim which can only arise out of profound ignorance or dishonesty. It is the latter claim which is snake oil.
Cables only alter the sound if the cables and/or the equipment are poorly built. This, of course, may be true at the 'high end' of audio or for some DIY (especially DIY cables - which seem to be peculiarly bad in many cases). Of course, if someone has spent enough time or effort on something any change in the sound is believed to be an improvement.
i have few sets of cables, price diff is neglectable, LCR diff is neglectable
and of course, i can tell the difference
and of course, i can tell the difference
If the tests had indicated that there was an audible difference between the $30 and $3000 DACs, would there have been as much debate and scrutiny over the validity of the result? My guess would be no.
I know this doesn’t change anything, and I’m enjoying the discussion, but I think this is an interesting consideration.
I know this doesn’t change anything, and I’m enjoying the discussion, but I think this is an interesting consideration.
if one man couldnt hear the diff, then assume or conclude no any other man could hear the diff
its complete nonsense and no science at all
its complete nonsense and no science at all
doppler9000,
it's extremely easy to understand: i'm a test organizer AND a user (audiophile) at the same time.
What you think are contradictions are not really. I don't have any agenda to push the tests towards positive or negative results. Results are the results. And my reactions to them, as an audiophile (as a human being for that matter) are genuine and ...candid.
it's extremely easy to understand: i'm a test organizer AND a user (audiophile) at the same time.
What you think are contradictions are not really. I don't have any agenda to push the tests towards positive or negative results. Results are the results. And my reactions to them, as an audiophile (as a human being for that matter) are genuine and ...candid.
Kinsei makes a lot of comments without even making the effort to read. Bad Kinsei.
It
The opposite of this is that false negatives are not paid any heed in this type of ABX testing ie did we not hear something that is really there? As a result of the lack of controls for false negatives, null results have to be questioned ie there is nothing in the test which shows that a certain level of difference is audible. It's the big failing of such ABX testing. Again, it could be the result of bad test, participants, etc. - the test doesn't help us answer this question in any way, unless some controls are used.
Anybody who runs such tests & wants to be taken seriously, needs to address these issues as do those who defend such tests. Yea, science is a bitch
The explanation for this is that ABX tests are designed so that false positives are minimized/eliminated (ie we don't hear something which isn't there) so positive results warrant investigation. It could be the result of real differences or bad test?
The opposite of this is that false negatives are not paid any heed in this type of ABX testing ie did we not hear something that is really there? As a result of the lack of controls for false negatives, null results have to be questioned ie there is nothing in the test which shows that a certain level of difference is audible. It's the big failing of such ABX testing. Again, it could be the result of bad test, participants, etc. - the test doesn't help us answer this question in any way, unless some controls are used.
Anybody who runs such tests & wants to be taken seriously, needs to address these issues as do those who defend such tests. Yea, science is a bitch
Last edited:
At the risk of repeating myself, guys, the test is not over yet.
It has no statistical value as of now. Not enough participants, especially with the 3rd system set-up.
Surprises might come, or not.
In any way, results will be updated on post #1.
It has no statistical value as of now. Not enough participants, especially with the 3rd system set-up.
Surprises might come, or not.
In any way, results will be updated on post #1.
You have not bothered to address the fundamental flaws about this test which have been pointed out to you. If you even tried to show any engagement with this your motives may be defensible -as it stands Doppler describes your m.o. to a tee
Your every post demonstrates that you have no clue how to run such a test & are not interested in finding out.
I guess the attention is all you crave.
If anyone is needy for a cup of agenda, JB is serving now!
Last edited:
I have answered everything that is based on some logic. Re-read carefully all previous pages.
mmerrill99, you have relentlessly attacked the ABX concept while making the demonstration that you cannot grasp on his very logic. There is not much we can do for you right now, but we'll sure object that obsessive non-sense to spread all over, as much as we can, as hard as we can.
And that will start with more participants, to reach some statistical value.
mmerrill99, you have relentlessly attacked the ABX concept while making the demonstration that you cannot grasp on his very logic. There is not much we can do for you right now, but we'll sure object that obsessive non-sense to spread all over, as much as we can, as hard as we can.
And that will start with more participants, to reach some statistical value.