I mean this test specifically, and likely for other similar tests.
By reverse correlation, yes, I mean consistent wrong answers rather than random answers.
Guessing should produce random answers. If a test question has two possible answers (like Foobar ABX does), guessing should be right half the time on average. Therefore, scoring 4/8, for example, would be expected on average if guessing.
Either kind of correlation, positive or negative (direct or reverse), is not an indication randomness, rather just the opposite, and therefore can't properly be attributed to guessing.
In addition, the reverse correlation I have described when using Foobar ABX appears to be the result of some kind of hidden bias in System 1 brain processing. I could speculate as to how that might happen, but I'm not sure creating an artificial story of cause and effect would be useful.
What I could perhaps say is that from what we now know about System 1 and System 3 so far, the inner workings are often more complex and than we may tend to imagine. Sometimes various subsystems of System 1 may operate in ways, and favor outcomes, that are at odds with each other. Somehow that seems to be happening with Foobar ABX, but I don't know exactly why.
I might add that I picked uu because I thought the transient edge was more realistic and voice seemed normal. But the leading edge could have been sharper because of more inter mod at HF ? Maybe LM4562 was probably 'more accurate' though the 'preference' was for the 'sound' one likes rather than what was more accurate ?
One can certainly expand this test over time. Will it give 'accurate' results ? Who knows, but it will be interesting !
One can certainly expand this test over time. Will it give 'accurate' results ? Who knows, but it will be interesting !
Well, I do not deny that the poll result might have been exaggerated due to lack of the ABX test, but I could hear the difference clearly, and it was from my cheap computer speakers, so I have enough reason to believe that most people participated in this test could actually hear the difference. This is an easy test. I remember that some comments about the sound signature, such as uu has more bottom, is the same impression as mine.
Furthermore, in the past, we performed the similar opamp tests 2 times with Amek and Sony consoles changing the internal opamps of the console strips. Our conclusion was basically the same as this test:
1) The opamp with highest specification is not the most preferable opamp.
2) We could find zero correlation between published spec and the human preference.
I know the reason why, but it's a subjective reason, because describing the difference in feeling can't be objective. No one can objectively explains his preference between coffee A and B, it's the same.
So the final conclusion for this kind of test has to be subjective, and there is no space for the science here, sorry.
Edited.
Last edited:
If it seems like uu had more bottom, could that have meant it had less top?
I ask because people often think in terms of adding rather than subtracting, at least when it comes to what may be changed to make something sound different.
If less top might have been a possibility, that might be explained by a relative lack of harmonic distortion produced by op-amp uu.
Also, I think it remains a possibility that uu was preferred in some part because System 1 may have liked the self-referential homophonic connection to "You, You." Such effects are not as uncommon as many people might expect. If that were to happen, it is very unlikely System 2 (conscious awareness) would know about it.
I ask because people often think in terms of adding rather than subtracting, at least when it comes to what may be changed to make something sound different.
If less top might have been a possibility, that might be explained by a relative lack of harmonic distortion produced by op-amp uu.
Also, I think it remains a possibility that uu was preferred in some part because System 1 may have liked the self-referential homophonic connection to "You, You." Such effects are not as uncommon as many people might expect. If that were to happen, it is very unlikely System 2 (conscious awareness) would know about it.
I remember that I felt uu may have slightly less top. More specifically, uu has less garbage at the top. Less information?, maybe, but unnecessary information, I guess. Sorry I could not understand your last half.
That is why I asked PMA to add 5534 and OPA637 in his next test (if he is not still sick of this
). Because those opamps share the same kind of filtering effect, but in more elegant manner. Well, I know I'm writing a stupid audiophile poem, but it is my personal impression about those opamps.
Last edited:
My point was more that things that seem so obvious when we have additional context tend to fall apart under blinding. And a large portion claimed they couldn't hear a difference Yes, a blinded trial is beyond the scope, although one could run it on one's own from PMA's well prepared files.
Anyhow, I'm probably stirring controversy rather than making a useful point.
Last edited:
Wrong. I'm not willing to admit it. I'm 100% happy to admit it. I kept saying my conclusion is all subjective, and zero scientific backup. it is a poem.
Last edited:
A logical conundrum?
@Mark - OK guy is a personal statement, against forum rules. It's my right to say the flowery prose surrounding the "sound" of op-amps does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
Well, there are opamps with coloration (intentionally or unintentionally, we can't know) that made themselves popular, and they are the different animals than the others intended to be "a wire with gain".
If I really have to complaint about this test, I would say we are comparing apples with oranges. I consider this test is like WE300B vs 2A3 single plate, but for some people, probably not.
If I really have to complaint about this test, I would say we are comparing apples with oranges. I consider this test is like WE300B vs 2A3 single plate, but for some people, probably not.
@Scott, I just took another look at the rules and I didn't see something about personal statements. I did see prohibition against what might be seen as rising to some level of abusiveness, to wit: Insulting, intimidating, bullying, harassing or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior.
When I think of some of the things that have been said to John Curl without intervention, for example, one may get some sense of where the line may be presumed to lie.
In my view, it would be nice to see more self restraint at times. But, it is nice to have some latitude at times as well.
When I think of some of the things that have been said to John Curl without intervention, for example, one may get some sense of where the line may be presumed to lie.
In my view, it would be nice to see more self restraint at times. But, it is nice to have some latitude at times as well.
Last edited:
I don't understand your response it was all about me, I would never say someone is not an OK person over an opinion about the sound of op-amps, how silly. I can still say their statements are unsupportable by any serious scrutiny.
Total nonsense, no effort into the "sound" of op-amps ever happened it's total fantasy. Where does this come from?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.