That of course depends on what one's definition of an audible difference is.
For example, there is a school of thought that says that DBTs completely ruin a human's ability to hear even gross differences.
For another example, there is a school of thought that says that any measurable difference is obviously an audible difference.
I don't agree with either, and I don't think you do, but just saying...
How many level matched DBT (ABX) do you know of that the listeners couldn't detect audible difference, and you and we all can be sure that with that very setup the listeners would have detected an audible small difference, IF they would have been subjected to this positive control (but were not).
Very many, since providing listener training/qualification became part of my SOP since around Y2K. Evidence? Check the Wayback Machine for "www.pcabx.com"
However, beware of the mistake of moving the goal posts, since in general to this day audiophiles make all kinds of public pronouncements about audibility based on listening evaluations without any reliable controls positive or negative.
DBT critics almost universally give free passes to people doing the worst kind of listening tests imaginable. This is of course unfair, but they are playing to their public, it seems.
"ABX test of two different amplifiers. The test was between a tube and a solid-state amplifier. No one during this test heard any difference" now we can quit diyaudio
Jakob2 hasn't answered that question last time he brought up the "gorilla" test so I asked him again in case he missed it the first time.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, can you post an example or two of positive control in audio DBT?
Sorta.
Go to https://archive.org/web/
Type in "www.pcabx.com" (no quotes)
Pick any day in year 2000 to confirm the date part of my claim
Navigate to any test
Observe that there are tests that are obvious to anybody who even half tries to run a test.
Leaving Nico's wide world of self-serving imagination and back in the real world:
ABX Double Blind Comparator Data
Observe:
"Paoli 60M vs. Dyna 400" test outcome: They sounded different.
this mean that without a right abx you cannot tell me that I'm not hear sound of resistor ? " " JA word not my immagination Swartz 40* vs. Dyna 400 same btw...
This means that your claim about ABX not being able to detect the difference between a tubed and SS amp was false. It would be interesting to see you take responsibility for your own statements and stop deflecting.
are false the word of John Atkinson ?? :
"ABX test of two different amplifiers. The test was between a tube and a solid-state amplifier. No one during this test heard any difference"
"ABX test of two different amplifiers. The test was between a tube and a solid-state amplifier. No one during this test heard any difference"
Nicoch, are we witnessing a miscommunication here? Are you saying that ABX cannot pick up differences between tube and ss (it can), or that a tube amp cannot sound indistinguishable from ss (it can)?
Last edited:
IME Yoda was consistent, if occasionally enigmatic.
In this case a blanket claim was changed to mention Atkinson after the origional blanket claim was falsified.
We found that some SS amps and tubed amps were indistinguishable, and some were not. I don't see why that should be incredible or even surprising.
Last edited:
Not so hard to understand why some refuse to accept this.
After all, if you accept that entirely different technologies of amplification can yield indistinguishable results, how can you maintain that different components and wire materials all have their own sound?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.