How do you propose to conduct a perception test on human subjects that is not founded on individual stimuli re loudness, pitch and timbre, ie ‘subjective’?
ABX discrimination testing is not the only widely spread methodology in these types of tests in science, they are the pop science “scienterrific’ darling of audio though.
ABX discrimination testing is not the only widely spread methodology in these types of tests in science, they are the pop science “scienterrific’ darling of audio though.
🙂 But my example was that 60% of the people is seeing the grass as red! 🙂
From actual results of the AES paper: 30% of the people liked the "inferior" cheap capacitor (!!!), and 10% could not hear the difference. In spite of "cherry picked" lemon of cheap high-microphonic capacitor!
So, it is not 60/30 difference, but only 60/40 in favor of the expensive cap - which is dangerously close to 50/50 chance of flipping the coin.
Last edited:
Oh my God! 😱
Yes, of course all hearing test are subjective! 🙄
classicalfan in post #1 tells simple truth which can be proved both objectively and subjectively - that 20% difference in capacitor value has objectively measurable and subjectively provable difference.
That only matters if you're the one selling capacitors. What matters most is that a difference was observed. As that is what several people have claimed here.
Their personal preference isn't being discussed.
Last edited:
No I thought it was good because jazzman kept bringing the article up yet classicalfan kept saying there were no blind tests done on the subject…..I had no idea besides commenting on the title page what the results of the tests were and if the results complimented my position. People really need to pay attention! 😉
Yah Wolf it’s the same ol thing…..character assasination seems more important than the substance of the debate. 🙄
I’m not trying to change any minds just defending my position although here would be a good test for classicalfan to try that wouldn’t hurt anything and only cost a few dollars………try changing out the audyn Q4 caps on your piccolo’s for Dayton’s which I’m pretty sure is a little less expensive….. if you don’t hear a difference I’ll shut up………yes that was me telling you to change your piccolo’s (just for a few minutes to test)
Oh and classicalfan in case ya missed the above from sonce …..“ Oh my God!
Yes, of course all hearing test are subjective! ”
Last edited:
So you can hear 0.002% distortion, but not 0.001% distortion? 🙂
Then, the best capacitor (from the quoted measurements) with 0.00064% is a junk (according to you), because it should be below 0.0001% THD? 🙂
Please give some proof of that nonlinearities in capacitors, which are above the human hearing treshiold.
Not true, 0.3 dB deviation is easily heard. Compare it with 1 or 2 dB deviation in tweeter output by 20% cap tolerance (post #1).
Capacitors in loudspeaker crossovers are not digital clocks and do not introduce jitter.
On the contrary, their personal preference for the more expensive caps were clearly stated in this forum. From all of them! But from the AES paper statistics, there should be at least 30% of them which prefer cheap caps, and 10% with no preference. Something is fishy in this forum... or in the AES paper... 🙂
Last edited:
Right, he did ask for objective one's didn't he? I'm going to follow his example and be too lazy to trawl back over this thread looking 😉
No. At least not in his post #1.
Why all discussants here do not want to discuss about the main (and the only one!) point in the post #1 - that the 20% cap tolerance is easy to detected as frequency deviation (both objectively and subjectively)??? That is about 1 or 2 dB frequency deviation! Of course caps with 2% or 5% are better - but you didn't have to by expensive boutique cap (favored by most of discussant here) to get the 5% tolerance.
Last edited:
Sonce the capacitor measurements I’ve seen that are said to be linkable to subjective differences are DA, EMR, ES, FRes
That’s a pretty broad conclusion to draw based on scant evidence.
As neither you nor the op seem to grasp, science does not provide proof but only conclusions drawn from facts and observations, as a propagandist for science I find this sorely lacking in the above.
As neither you nor the op seem to grasp, science does not provide proof but only conclusions drawn from facts and observations, as a propagandist for science I find this sorely lacking in the above.
Sorry, except me, nobody agreed with it! Even you. Everybody started the "expensive caps are better because of lower distortion, lower microphonic, better timing, etc." campaign. Not a word about 20% tolerance of extremely cheap capacitors (which nobody really use) and 5% tolerance of both cheap and expensive caps.
Last edited:
"Are said to be.." is nothing, zero, zilch, nada. Gossip, at the best.
Please give us measurements which are above the human hearing treshold.
Yes I did, there where different subjects which had been connected in the first post
Just something for you to chew on…….anything I might link or say is never going to be good enough so I thought maybe you could take a look at those things wherever it is you trust for information to come from.
You know maybe some tests that prove those things are inaudible? 😛
Last edited:
I fail to see any other theme in post #1, except 20% vs 5% tolerance (and confirmation bias in one sentence).
What are you saying Sonce……..if it’s not part of post #1 it’s not up for discussion?
Well that’s convenient!
Well that’s convenient!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.