Numbers are fine, provided they reflect the true situation of the complete system in operation. And that is still not being done, because everyone says it's too hard ...
We're still in the situation of creating a Formula I car where the engine guys work out the perfect engine, the suspension guys the ideal suspension, etc, etc, in beautiful isolation from each other. They hand the results to some garage mechanic to assemble, and the poor test driver flies off the road on the first corner. "Not my fault!" says the engine guy, "It tested beautifully!!" ... "Not my fault!" says the suspension chap, "... ...
Frank
This is all very amusing. However, I personally do not believe that the ABX double blind test is capable of separating anything that is properly set up. I failed it, myself, 33 years ago or so.
It is the test that has the limitation, not the human ear. Nobody here, at least, seems to look at the test itself, for its limitations. My critics want to believe that a null result in an ABX test is useful, and they want Stereophile and TAS reviews to do it too. They all tried it and came to the same conclusion as I did 33 years ago.
However, I have successfully passed blind A-B tests, where I simply chose which I like A or B best. That works, AND it can be made as 'double blind' as an ABX test. YET, that is how I compare differences in audio equipment successfully. Some here should try it.
It is the test that has the limitation, not the human ear. Nobody here, at least, seems to look at the test itself, for its limitations. My critics want to believe that a null result in an ABX test is useful, and they want Stereophile and TAS reviews to do it too. They all tried it and came to the same conclusion as I did 33 years ago.
However, I have successfully passed blind A-B tests, where I simply chose which I like A or B best. That works, AND it can be made as 'double blind' as an ABX test. YET, that is how I compare differences in audio equipment successfully. Some here should try it.
I will say that when the previous curve i had published ( bandwidth in the loop) will be flat up to 10Khz.
Agree on RFI.
I believe some transient high order distortions at hf can be demodulated in the audio range if devices not fast enough.
At least John, try to justify your assertions. Your authority and your charm are not sufficient to convince most of us, poor heretics.
The proof is in the comparison between components and long term listening. If one cannot live with a product happily, even though it went through ABX testing successfully, then one should not keep that product in ones audio system, but put in another. That is what successful listeners do.
Sorry, I didn't realise I was quoting you. If you said that, then I agree!Esperado said:
Some audiophools may be fools. Most are not, but may be misguided or simply herd-following or simply in denial about the strength of placebo and other similar effects. It is the claim which is being doubted, for sound scientific reasons, not the person. If the person making the claim then securely attaches himself and his reputation to the claim then that is a matter for him. If I hug a tree then I can just step away when the tree is cut down. If I live in a treehouse then I go down with the tree, but that is my choice.Jay said:
Some of these extraordinary claims may be true, but we will never know if they are never tested.
Well, enough of trying to explain my position here.
Now, as I was informed previously on this thread, I got another 'product of the year' award in the Jan 2013 issue of TAS that just arrived yesterday.
What is more important than doing a test that will show nothing, even if I went through the time and trouble to do it, is how in the heck did I get this new award, when everybody knows that I don't deserve the honor? Why didn't they give it to someone else with a more sensible design? That is the most important question!
Now, as I was informed previously on this thread, I got another 'product of the year' award in the Jan 2013 issue of TAS that just arrived yesterday.
What is more important than doing a test that will show nothing, even if I went through the time and trouble to do it, is how in the heck did I get this new award, when everybody knows that I don't deserve the honor? Why didn't they give it to someone else with a more sensible design? That is the most important question!
Because the award is from a fashion magazine that rates products according to how they stack up in the fashion niche, and you do very well in that niche?
whenever I do a blind test I make sure I listen to a new component for at least 7 days inorder to even out the results.
and typically that will end up in me going back to the original component.
and typically that will end up in me going back to the original component.
Thanks SY for the input. I never could have thought of that. I just thought that my efforts to make a good sounding design paid off. '-) I wish that they paid me like a fashion designer, I could use a new 'image'.
We share the talent of being able to make other people rich while somehow avoiding money ourselves. 😀
The more relevant test for "scientists" would be: can´t you really distinguish two duts or can´t you simply because you believe in a undetectable difference?
Not to reveal the test items to the listeners is quite popular at, for example the RWTH Aachen and its technical acoustics department.
It takes a bit more of any directional bias out of the game.
When I have a layover at Frankfurt I visit their magazine/book shop which is well stocked with worldwide audiophile magazines and they don't mind browsing. I am always amazed that there still several new phono stages every year (most costing more than a BT) and it makes the fashion aspect even more obvious. Does anyone have any insights into what differentiates some of these? I have seen at least one using magnetics for volumne control but they can't all be using unobtainium JFET's. It's makes the BT seem so much like old news.
Since vinyl sales increase and most integrated (and pre-) amplifiers come
without a phono stage nowadays there is obvoiusly demand.
Attachments
It seems that we are all spinning or wheels here. In the end isn't the whole exercise to find a system that involves the listener in the music and makes you happy? If I listen to some loudspeaker that someone else tells me in a dbx test is the best and after a few hours I can no longer listen to the sound because of some fatiguing phenomena like a titanium dome tweeter with lots of upper frequency hash is that a good test? If I could put a band in front of me and a sound system and in a blind test I could not tell them apart I would have found the holly grail. Obviously we are not there with a two channel sound system, the human ear will always know the difference there or you are deaf. The so called Golden ears will have their own preconceived notion of which system is most enjoyable also. Since we have no perfect reproduction chain we are all choosing the sound that we prefer, not the most accurate to a live performance since we can not reproduce that. Who can get the closest to a live event should win but I bet that is often not the case. Some may listen to a jazz band for their test, while I would probably listen for the sound of the human voice. A male may sound good on a system and then when you hear a female voice the sibilance just pops out and you know something is not right. It sounds like one of the abx or abcx tests should have a straight wire in there with all levels set exactly the same. If the wire does not win then what does that tell us? We are actually listening for a preference and not the device that does the least damage to the signal while amplifying the signal and nothing more.
If having large sums of money which made you able to select whatever equipment you wanted was a determinant factor, are we making money equivalent to intelligence? I live surrounded by monied people, lots of money, does that make these people smarter than anyone else, or better at making a decision about music? I think not or I would be surrounded by geniuses. I can tell you that is not the case....... But they sure drive more expensive cars than I do, they are creatures of ego, that is the driver there. I remember my neighbor back in the day, drove an "E" type Jaguar. Problem was it was always in the shop, so was that really a better car than my cheaper Z'28 Camaro that started everyday and would eat his lunch in a race? His was prettier, mine did the job. Same goes for so much high end audio equipment, it looks pretty and the marketing tells you how good it is, but is it going to do the job?
If having large sums of money which made you able to select whatever equipment you wanted was a determinant factor, are we making money equivalent to intelligence? I live surrounded by monied people, lots of money, does that make these people smarter than anyone else, or better at making a decision about music? I think not or I would be surrounded by geniuses. I can tell you that is not the case....... But they sure drive more expensive cars than I do, they are creatures of ego, that is the driver there. I remember my neighbor back in the day, drove an "E" type Jaguar. Problem was it was always in the shop, so was that really a better car than my cheaper Z'28 Camaro that started everyday and would eat his lunch in a race? His was prettier, mine did the job. Same goes for so much high end audio equipment, it looks pretty and the marketing tells you how good it is, but is it going to do the job?
Last edited:
How do you show that someone can distinguish DUTs when he believes that he cannot? A good scientist would not tell lies in such a test, but how would the tester know? Much better to demonstrate that people who think they can distinguish really can do it, then the scientist will be sufficiently intrigued to ask 'How?' and 'Why can't I do it?'.Jakob2 said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.