DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever

Jump to Latest
#761
JonBocani said:
It's not a SPL's ABX test, no.
Click to expand...
Huh? It's a test for differences as you have stated many times. Volume differences at this level are usually not noticed as differences in loudness but rather as a quality difference - is this what was heard or were people reporting a loudness difference?
Studies in that regard are probably available on internet, but as far as i know, it's somewhere between 0.1db and 1.0db for the vast majority of the population.
Click to expand...
If you find these studies they will most likely corroborate what I said

We unoffically spotted differencial in the 0.5-1.0db range, with system set-ups 1 & 2, without much effort, but after with the 3rd set-up, a 0.2db diff was more or less identified, just before it was recalibrated to a tighter match.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to take you seriously, Jon - unofficially means it was pure luck, I reckon or you weren't blind

Now it's somewhere between 0.00db and 0.10db diff, difficult to know with our equipment. Anyway, DUTs themselves are most probably not 0.00db on all bandwith, as a member pointed out... So we're probably thinking beyond the SPL-matching required for such test, but rather in the limits of DUT compensation.
Click to expand...
I believe this SPL is your red herring - unless you can post significant ABX results that show the test is sensitive enough to spot such differences.
 
#763
Audiograms measure the lowest SPL at which one can hear particular frequencies. That's all. They don't measure what frequencies someone can hear if the SPL is turned up a little. They don't measure to what extent someone can hear distortion. They don't measure to what extent one can hear imaging or source localization.

What good does it do to have someone who can hear frequencies at very low SPL in the group if the SPL is going to be turned up higher and people are going to be listening to things like DACs that don't differ in a way that has anything to do with low SPL frequency recognition? It's bizarre anyone would think they are doing something scientifically sensible. It's almost like the flat earth thread in terms of people trying to use fictional science to prove to themselves whatever they want to believe.
 
Last edited:
#764
JonBocani said:
gradual, i understand... but why it wouldnt be a big deal for the high frequency AND the unflatten response ?
Click to expand...
We all have wild frequency variations, young & old, from the ear canal structure which creates specific resonances that are individual - not just decimal dBs but a couple of dBs at certain frequencies are not unusual, AFAIR.

We learn to accommodate to these spectral distortions as we grow & our ear canals change shape.
 
#766
Markw4 said:
Audiograms measure the lowest SPL at which one can hear particular frequencies. That's all. They don't measure what frequencies someone can hear if the SPL is turned up a little. They don't measure to what extent someone can hear distortion. They don't measure to what extent one can hear imaging or source localization.

What good does is have someone who can hear frequencies at very low SPL in the group if the SPL is going to be turned up higher and people are going to be listening to things like DACs that don't differ in a way that has anything to do with low SPL frequency recognition? It's bizarre anyone would think they are doing something scientifically sensible. It's almost like the flat earth thread in terms of people trying to use fictional science to prove to themselves whatever they want to believe.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are also notoriously inaccurate, ooo, I thought I might have heard something, I better press the button....no....better not, I'd just be fooling myself, agghh, I don't know what to do now.....too....late.....hang on, did I just hear another tone? mmmmm
 
#767
Markw4 said:
Audiograms measure the lowest SPL at which one can hear particular frequencies. That's all. They don't measure what frequencies someone can hear if the SPL is turned up a little.
Click to expand...

That's true.

Oh wait, that's actually wrong. 😛


dBHL is, in the very essence, the (audible) threshold of every frequencies.

''turned up a little'' is up to 96db (not to mention Corr. SPL-HL) in certain cases...


EDIT: let's put the images here as well


An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.




EDIT 2:

ISO/TR 389-5:1998 - Acoustics -- Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment -- Part 5: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones in the frequency range 8 kHz to 16 kHz

There is a 2006 revision on ISO/TR 389-5 but i don't know what's implied. Maybe to follow the ISO 226:2003 ? Is someone here knows about that?
 
Last edited:
#771
scottjoplin said:
Yes, they are also notoriously inaccurate, ooo, I thought I might have heard something, I better press the button....no....better not, I'd just be fooling myself, agghh, I don't know what to do now.....too....late.....hang on, did I just hear another tone? mmmmm
Click to expand...

The audiologist explained to me that, to avoid such thing, they have to follow a procedure with implies to repeat many times the same trial. Also, they use tools such as the Madsen Otoflex 100 or similar...
 
#774
JonBocani said:
The audiologist explained to me that, to avoid such thing, they have to follow a procedure with implies to repeat many times the same trial.
Click to expand...
Do they do statistical analysis of the trials? 😀
Also, they use tools such as the Madsen Otoflex 100 or similar...
Click to expand...
You are just throwing out scientific sounding device names hoping they sound convincing - do you know what these do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom