Paul I think the above should be '... may lead...
Anyway, if you believe that false positives are better because they lead to increased listening pleasure (and I agree to that) you can maximize that by doing only sighted tests.
Much more false positives than with controlled testing, hence much more listening pleasure. Which is demonstrated again and again here.
So did we have a problem? 😎
BTW I think you violated SY's principle: state the goal first. It should not be to maximize listening pleasure, because as noted there are faster ways to that than excruciating controlled tests 😉
Jan
The trouble with this is that you can be trained to hear anything, whether it's real or not. The brain is a powerful correlator, always trying to match patterns to inputs. Old time radio ops - and many radio amateurs - are familiar with the situation where, listening to noise, suddenly you will clearly hear a voice speak - but nothing is actually there. This sparked a bunch of stuff where people claimed to hear the vices of the dead by listening to radio static.
I have seen tests where people have been taught to hear differences in sound reproduction, which once they are trained to hear it, they hear it every time -- but it's not there! Same sound played twice.
All these effects disappear with proper blind testing.
As far as I recall John has always said he relies on the listening opinions of others. He also mentions that he tries to get rid of all measurable traces of higher order harmonic distortion. It is the troll who keeps acusing him of designing by sighted tests. John does say he looks when making comparisons. But designs by goals set from experience. So the listening test is basically to be sure there isn't something he missed.
John, interestingly enough the logical extension of ABX is "ultra fast" switching! In this instance, one only needs to pick a sample point of the waveform at an instant, then capture that. Afterwards, when playing back, one re-assembles the waveform and via integration gets a semblance of the original back. Your mind can not select between the samples, therefore everything does sound exactly the same!
I have decided to coin the phrase to describe this ABX method; "digital". 😀
</humor>
(I say son, I say, that's a joke boy... Foghorn Leghorn)
Last edited:
Actually, the opposite is also true.
It has been shown that it is possible to detect signal (voices being one) under the noise.
As far as people imagining voices, I expect this is true as well. But not the same thing.
As an active ham, it's been my experience that non-hams visiting and listening to the same voice + noise coming from the speaker (in cases where the noise and the voice are at virtually the same levels, fading one over the over...) are unable to discern what is being said when it is pretty easy for me personally. This has happened often enough so that I am confident that it is not happenstance.
As far as proper blind testing goes, there is something about the way it is done that does appear to "derail" some aspect of how the brain decodes information. I'm personally not against any blind testing (for the record) I am simply not certain that it is dispositive in all cases. Actually I'm pretty sure that most of the blind tests that I am aware of have important flaws, EVEN IF they give back useful information.
</can of worms on ABX>
And, another thought, just to "chum the waters" - if you or no one can actually hear the difference between amps (those amps being without obvious glaring measurable deficits) like the aforementioned brands, or any other, why the heck are you guys or anyone else still mucking about with these subtleties of circuit design??
signed,
rather confused....
signed,
rather confused....
In order to be absolutely sure that if I notice something odd in the music in my room, I only have to blame my ears for it. Or possibly my shoddy brain.
And for sports.
bacon fat instead of Caig gold
I eat a lot of bacon and have always thrown away the rendered fat. Then Light Bulb moment!!! I've started brushing the warm, liquid, fat on my bare wire terminated speaker cables. Big improvement over the Caig stuff. Even my cat seems to hear the diff. I'm setting up a dbt event and, if it goes as expected, I see an internet business in my future. Maybe even expand to include olive oil, but has to be extra virgin only. Who woulda thunk it?
I eat a lot of bacon and have always thrown away the rendered fat. Then Light Bulb moment!!! I've started brushing the warm, liquid, fat on my bare wire terminated speaker cables. Big improvement over the Caig stuff. Even my cat seems to hear the diff. I'm setting up a dbt event and, if it goes as expected, I see an internet business in my future. Maybe even expand to include olive oil, but has to be extra virgin only. Who woulda thunk it?
Makes one wonder how a pig would sound as live power conductor.
Possibly an interesting comparison to mud and/or banana.
Possibly an interesting comparison to mud and/or banana.
Mud not so good...would have to water it. Pig also not so good. Needs feeding and the occasional cleanup. Also squealing would be a big distraction to say the least. But, maybe keep it in a sound proof room adjacent to the listening room. Only problem there is need for long cables...not good. Wait, maybe connect it via WIFI.
Last edited:
Speaking of what we eat. The best upgrade for my hearing was to cut out animal products and all oils from my diet. I did the China Study diet. Lost 12 pounds and BP fell 35 points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Last edited:
Good to hear from you, Bear. I strongly agree with you, as well as several others here about ABX testing. Or 'no peeking'. '-) The 'objective' tests have failed to discriminate between audio products, often to a ridiculous degree. There is just something wrong them, in my opinion.
Like anything else you have to do things in context. While it would be one thing to test two different power amplifiers on an all horn loaded system that was over 100db per watt efficiency and you could test multiple amplifiers at 1 watt output and make a determination of sound quality, it would be something else to do a test with 84db per watt speakers that required 100 watts or more to get to a specific spl level. If one amp had only a 50 watt output and another had 200 watts of power and one is clipping you would obviously say one amp sounds good and the other was defective. Not necessarily so but the test would be flawed for sure. So test requirements and test setup and final results have to be looked at carefully to do an honest test. Just as in statistics it is easy to purposefully get a false result the same can be said of many audio test setups. In the end if you can't hear a difference does it matter, even if something exist does not mean it is significantly relevant. Enjoy the music, that is the bottom line.
ps. For those who do not read the Slewmaster thread, Pete, Ostripper has just announced that he will no longer be able to participate on these forums due to advancing Parkinson's disease. He has lost the ability to write. So be thankful for your own personal health and the fact you still have your hearing, life is to short. He will be missed.
ps. For those who do not read the Slewmaster thread, Pete, Ostripper has just announced that he will no longer be able to participate on these forums due to advancing Parkinson's disease. He has lost the ability to write. So be thankful for your own personal health and the fact you still have your hearing, life is to short. He will be missed.
1.) Super glad for the health improvements.
2.) Eeep. The China Study is an egregious example of the term: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
3.) See: 1. You probably started paying good attention to what you are eating and cut out a lot of crap. To steal from Michael Pollen, "“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
4.) Back again to number 1.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.