Trust your ears. Don't trust your lying brain.
If you have to peek to tell the difference, it's not a sonic difference. Very simple.
There is no difference between the two - that is a non-argument.
OK, but hiding the equipment doesn't work either. The perfection you seek does not exist. Not in that format.
I think you should read what I said again. I explained my concerns very clearly and pointed to known weaknesses, they cannot be ignored.
For double blind tests to be improved, they need to be changed. As they are, they are not reliable.
Sorry.
.
If you can't tell the difference between an ear and a brain, I am relieved that you didn't choose medicine as a career.
If you need to peek to hear a difference, it's not sonic. Dancing around that uncomfortable (for you) truth and trying to blow smoke doesn't change that simple fact. So, you've been clear that there's not going to be any actual listening tests; I can hardly wait to see what you're going to call a "measurement."
In all these years I have often found myself listening to my CD out via my preamp for hours on end thinking I am hearing my ES9018 via my 1:4 transformers 🙂
I agree with SY that I would totally fail in a double blind test unless I am I open my eyes and look for differences back to back playback OR the differences are clearly perceptible. I don't claim to have golden ears so I have to rely on knowing and playing
My brother in law (who undoubted has better ears than I) can spot the changes in the first 2-3 mins almost with uncanny 99% accuracy. So can my 8 year old
Now having said that - I found that when I do all my evaluations using "open eyes/peeking", tweaking, listening knowingly back to back and rank the tweaks or dacs or output stages during the week, my brother in law comes over the weekend, listens to all of the tweaks etc and ranks them almost the same as I do. Repeatedly... He has no idea of the tweaks. I have even tried to fool him by telling him I am tweaking and I don't but he doesn't falter. I also ensure that that gains from various stages I build are at 1Vrms in to the preamp (I always insert a resistor in series to bring down all outputs to 1V) so that the volume is within 0.5db or less across the sources and tweaks
So I really don't know what to make of the above. I see SY's point but I also don't know how to explain the strong correlation between "double blind" and "peeking".
Please don't flame me.. Just relating my stories. Hope this helps
Peace all!
I agree with SY that I would totally fail in a double blind test unless I am I open my eyes and look for differences back to back playback OR the differences are clearly perceptible. I don't claim to have golden ears so I have to rely on knowing and playing
My brother in law (who undoubted has better ears than I) can spot the changes in the first 2-3 mins almost with uncanny 99% accuracy. So can my 8 year old
Now having said that - I found that when I do all my evaluations using "open eyes/peeking", tweaking, listening knowingly back to back and rank the tweaks or dacs or output stages during the week, my brother in law comes over the weekend, listens to all of the tweaks etc and ranks them almost the same as I do. Repeatedly... He has no idea of the tweaks. I have even tried to fool him by telling him I am tweaking and I don't but he doesn't falter. I also ensure that that gains from various stages I build are at 1Vrms in to the preamp (I always insert a resistor in series to bring down all outputs to 1V) so that the volume is within 0.5db or less across the sources and tweaks
So I really don't know what to make of the above. I see SY's point but I also don't know how to explain the strong correlation between "double blind" and "peeking".
Please don't flame me.. Just relating my stories. Hope this helps
Peace all!
What you described isn't double blind. It might not even be single blind- there's LOTS of ways to get non-auditory cues, peeking is just the most common. But hey, it's not your responsibility to validate Joe's claims, it's Joe's, so solder away and have fun.
Who is this silent majority? I imagine there are a number of us that are bemusedly waiting for data (like, you know, REAL data) rather than a plural of anecdote*.
*The plural of anecdote is not data (Attributed to Roger Brinner? Seems contended who said it first)
*The plural of anecdote is not data (Attributed to Roger Brinner? Seems contended who said it first)
We don't hear with our ears and we don't hear with our brain - we hear with our ear-brain. I have a friend who has worked for Cochlea for some twenty+ years (hi Paul) - if the double-blind-test-dogma has not kept up with the times, not my fault.
"Hearing is the result of the collaboration between the ear and the auditory brain. An ear without a brain is like an unplugged microphone..." straight off Cochlea's website.
Remember, you have to point the microphone somewhere? Hearing is a concentrated exercise, in a crowd or with multiple stimuli, the brain decides almost unconsciously what to listen to, and it moves about. Again, this is a problem for double blind tests. We understand much more about the ear-brain since those were conceived.
Thank you for your contribution. Roger Brinner did actually say "The plural of anecdote is not data" - my understanding with reference to the behavior of the market place? He did not condemn anecdotes, they will always be there and what qualifies as such is often in the eyes of the beholder.
Dictionary: A short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
An anecdote can have a serious underlying message. They have their place. They are not necessarily bad.
Data, like other things, takes time, so it's good that you say your are waiting and we shall serve you as soon as we can. That makes you more patient than others, it makes you the majority. So no problems.
But rather than waiting, you could take part...? Up to you.
It should be very easy to arrange a foobar test, or to record (level balanced) the DAC output with and without the proposed changes and to post a file up so ABX testing could be done.
No need for all this argumentation . . .
Just do it.
No need for all this argumentation . . .
Just do it.
Anecdotes are bad, they make me want to bang my head against the wall every time you post one.
A man ordered a hamburger with the new special sauce. On the way out he told me it was the best ever. In reality it was the old sauce with new marketing.
It proves nothing. More head banging to come?
A man ordered a hamburger with the new special sauce. On the way out he told me it was the best ever. In reality it was the old sauce with new marketing.
It proves nothing. More head banging to come?
Wow! Let's have a war on anecdotes, they might bring down western civilisation as we know it. 😀
Com'on guys, lighten up. There is something wrong about the telling of an amusing story? You mean you never told one? Glum, glum, glum.
Just do it?
Good, then... you just do it. Great opportunity. Me, I don't even know what a foobar is? I will Google it. 😀
Cheers, Joe
PS: Downloading Foobar2000 right now, thought it might be some software. Will take a look at it.
Last edited:
I thought about this as well, but you can't get away from the fact that the recorded results will be being put through another DAC, so if it ends up a null result, how do you know if that was because passing it through another DAC masks any effect? I guess you can't prove a negative so this is not a problem...
If on the other hand people CAN reliably pick a difference between the two Then at least that does show that there is a difference. If this is done it would need to be one of the EQ'ed versions, otherwise it could easily be the rolloff that is being detected.
edit: Joe do a search for foobar ABX
Tony.
Last edited:
I believe and correct me if I am wrong Joe, that what is being asserted here is that the difference between having a capacitor and not is so easily discernable that it requires no ABX
Reading through this thread again, it seems like all that is being asked of this group is to try the tweak and attempt to explain the phenomena via some measurement.
In my own tests, the difference was stark. Although it was not blind by any means. But in a variation of ABX, where there is no X but just A and B, I think I would be able to easily pick out the A and B reliably (capacitor versus capacitor-less). I know that others in my listening group who I have "experimented" on 🙂D), have been able to pick out A versus B easily.
Apologies if I am mudding the waters instead of clearing it. Just trying to help. If I am not helping, I will humbly bow out 😊
I live in Chicagoland, if you wish to stop by and listen to my setup, please feel to PM me. I ll make sure I get my noisy kids out the house and arrange some good hot tea. I think I make good tea 😊
Reading through this thread again, it seems like all that is being asked of this group is to try the tweak and attempt to explain the phenomena via some measurement.
In my own tests, the difference was stark. Although it was not blind by any means. But in a variation of ABX, where there is no X but just A and B, I think I would be able to easily pick out the A and B reliably (capacitor versus capacitor-less). I know that others in my listening group who I have "experimented" on 🙂D), have been able to pick out A versus B easily.
Apologies if I am mudding the waters instead of clearing it. Just trying to help. If I am not helping, I will humbly bow out 😊
I live in Chicagoland, if you wish to stop by and listen to my setup, please feel to PM me. I ll make sure I get my noisy kids out the house and arrange some good hot tea. I think I make good tea 😊
Indeed, your assertion is absolutely right. The difference with/without cap is so obvious that no any ABX or blind test are necessary.
They who claim such tests need only to implement this tweak and experience themselves the improvements.
What we need here is to establish a measurement method/approach to relate this "effect" to enough precise figures. In my opinion the circuit`s frequency response modifications with this cap in place is far from a good explanation for what is happen here.
They who claim such tests need only to implement this tweak and experience themselves the improvements.
What we need here is to establish a measurement method/approach to relate this "effect" to enough precise figures. In my opinion the circuit`s frequency response modifications with this cap in place is far from a good explanation for what is happen here.
So you listen. Take the unit apart. Solder in parts, put back together, plug in and can remember what it sounded like before enough to tell the difference AND you prefer that after? Even without the wife in the kitchen?
You need to borrow a unit with the warranty still in tact to compare or there is NO comparison. Lack of spectrum plots from Joe or the believers does make me wonder if that is what they are aiming for.
I've heard the same thing about power cords and Bybee Quantum Purifiers. 😀 Assertion without evidence is coin of the realm in high end audio, one of the reasons that it is not taken very seriously by most people.
Joe has made two claims, neither of which has been supported by any evidence:
1. Putting the capacitor in causes an audible difference.
2. Putting a pole somewhere downstream which gives the same frequency response does not cause the same audible difference.
Ears-only listening can resolve the question. Joe says he's not going to do that. Measurement showing a significant difference (by significant, I mean changes in frequency response, distortion, or noise that are above generally accepted hearing thresholds) can also resolve the question. The hour or two to do those measurements has not yet been invested. Perhaps less typing and more lab work might yield better acceptance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.