I thought the "golden ears" are usually in a irretrievable marriage breakdown with Ohm and Maxwell (some are trying try to cheat). And that the same "golden ears" population usually reject even the idea of "double blind" listening test, disregarding how carefully designed it is.
Much lower jitter can be audible at least with OS dacs. However, perceptually all that may be heard is a little bit bright and very slightly distorted sound from the dac. Most people would have no idea of why a dac sounds that way, and why it does not instead sound a bit more smooth and natural.
Obviously, if researchers are looking for the wrong perceptual clues for some other presumed audible effect, they will likely not find anything.
Fortunately, many high end dac designers such as the engineers at Benchmark Media have their own ABX testing room (or otherwise engage in blind testing) and do their own research to find out what is audible to them.
Last edited:
Looks like Jakob2 was referring to the 'non golden ears.' Perhaps hyphenation would have made it more clear.
Maybe, any data to support this claim?
I was only quoting a quote from the "Benjamin/Gannon jitter publication", since the original is behind the AES firewall.
Jealous ?
Do-you spend your saliva commenting the flyers of the Professeur Marabou guru Bambo m'bala (spell removal, return of love, master of African ancestral magic) ?
Réseau des marabouts voyants africains et médiums à Paris
I prefer antibiotic, but, if snake oil help somebody else to feel better, I don't give a damn.
Last edited:
Not sure what you are trying to defend here, Jakob's statement looks pretty clear to me, and in my book it is flat wrong (at least statistically). EM theory and double blind tests deniers (or ignorants) are usually to be found in the "golden ears" group.
Last edited:
Whatever fits your bill is good, simple, beautiful, etc... The problem starts when those conclusions are extrapolated, without support, to the rest of the population.
99.99999% of the individual listening evaluation problems would be solved if the evaluator would start his review with “in my opinion...” instead of invoking (implicit or explicit) sweeping generalizations.
Why to try to kill this dead horse ?
Double blind is not optimal, on my opinion because it requests a too complex process of recognition, including "memory" efforts.
The conclusions that can be drawn are both irrefutable in terms of method and insufficient to discriminate subtle differences. Which, I grant you, are subtle enough not to be so critical. ;-)
No need for any fundamentalism or excessive paranoia. People who like to fool themselves will ... full themselves, anyway. Are we responsible for their fantasies?
If they feel happy this way, it is OK for me, no animals were mistreated.
Last edited:
No there isn't any way. Competition from too many Me-Too products have driven the price and profit down such that only high volume can keep a store in business. Often that is not enough income.... mobile phone 'protection' covers, device chargers and cords, extra memory, cables and cords, extensions etc. keep the doors open.
-RNM
Last edited:
Sure, but it is proprietary. Nobody wants to pay for public research anymore for things like that. If money is 'invested' in research then the owners often don't want to give it away. Maybe we can expect Scott Wurcer to tell us all of AD's proprietary findings? I don't think so.
Okay. Let's see if Jakob2 cares to explain more. Personally, always enjoy reading what he has to say.
So hang on, company A builds a test room and claims that they have shown XYZ to be audible so their product is much better on those parameters. But with no published evidence isn't this just marketing fluff?
Microsoft has the lowest noise anechoic chamber in the world. Doesn't mean their expensive tablets have good sound 😛
Microsoft has the lowest noise anechoic chamber in the world. Doesn't mean their expensive tablets have good sound 😛
Bill, we never know if there is not publicly published data for independent review. However, the government got of out funding that when healthcare and disability and retirement claims got too big to handle. Now there are public/private partnerships where academic publications often look more to me like announcements of work performed rather than exhaustive technical reports. Unfortunately, discussion going too far in the above direction would risk bringing us into restricted topics.
In my opinion, your opinion is incorrect. Excuses for peeking are SOP for the "golden ears".
There is no need whatsoever for 'peeking.' There are simply other blind protocols besides ABX used by professional researchers. Foobar ABX happens to be popular because it is the one free online blind protocol that claims some protection against 'peeking,' which by the way isn't even true. One can peek easily enough, trust me.
In my opinion, your opinion is incorrect.
Simple blind is good enough for prevent from peaking. This endless controversy is BORING. Dare I write stupid?
It is a natural process to immediately look at what we hear. I need to discriminate between two 'visually' recognizable sources A and B and to can refine my conclusions knowing which one I am dealing with in order to correlate my successive perceptions.
Making impossible to know witch brand is A and witch is B is large enough to prevent-me from any partiality if any. Especially since partiality or subjectivism is something I fear of.
It is quite amusing to note that "objectivism" becomes a fundamentalist religion for so many people, nowadays, in audio.
And please, could you stop for a moment these references almost insulting to supposed "golden ears ?
Last edited:
“Double blind” # “Foobar ABX”
“Foobar ABX” < “double blind”
Anoother SOP (beyond excuses to peek) is to invoke proprietary secret research results that only a small number of Illuminati have access to, the ROW must take their word about.
Yes, peeking or clueing are good and reliable.
It was Jakob that started using “golden ears” in this discussion, I only picked up. But since I smell yet another bout of civil war, I give up. Keep peeking, be happy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.