All my observations points out that short lenght excerpts are better (for maximum chances of identification).
Think of it like making side-by-side comparison between TVs. You'll switch your eyes on the left TV, then on the right TV, then back to the left, very quickly. You won't stare at one for half an hour, then shift it for another half an hour. It's a very quick, back-and-forth process. Same for paint color selection, or food tasting.
The impression, the ''shadow'' of the sensation from the previous one will in fact help to enhance the contrast (if any), therefore helping to find differences (if any).
It's really a matter of seconds.
If anything, my music excerpts are too long. But then again, if our brains can seamlessly adapt so fast, what would be the point to change for ''better'' equipment?
That's a very common objection against blind tests, the myth that long of very very long exposure would be better.
Not only nothing serious supports that but it's the complete opposite.
I'm not even sure KNOWING the music is helpful, as the mind can have a related memory of some kind (or even some emotional bond) that interferes with the level of concentration needed in those test.
Not only nothing serious supports that but it's the complete opposite.
I'm not even sure KNOWING the music is helpful, as the mind can have a related memory of some kind (or even some emotional bond) that interferes with the level of concentration needed in those test.
Another very common objection against the blind test, is the neverending quest of the golden ears. Like if that superpowered pair of ears would help our case, us poor mortals....
Golden ear - Wikipedia
LOL @ hallucinator and 50 people in the world.
Any of them would care for a cappuccino ?
Golden ear - Wikipedia
LOL @ hallucinator and 50 people in the world.
Any of them would care for a cappuccino ?
Well i'm not part of this test but I do think for the sake of curiosity it's wroth trying and sharing some audio samples along with advice on what OP should be listening for would probably help.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to push with that link however. It's interesting that when given instruction on what to listen resulted in more success differentiating but isn't directly relevant to this as the DUT is different. It's simply another thing to try which may or may not change the results.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...ble-difference-whatsoever-14.html#post5244913 described the replies brought up regarding the point of the test. The test is if one can tell the difference but that is simply a prerequisite.
If you have reasonably good equipment and the only difference are the DACs, you have proved your point with enough unbiased observers. Beyond that you are attempting to see just how tiny the difference might be by using more exotic equipment. You also risk sample bias if the listeners collaborate during the test to "train" each other. Still in the $30 (or maybe $19.99) camp.
same wiki link as above
Very interesting.
Never witnessed a 0.1db differencial identification, though. And 1db is a lot, i think... I personnaly consider that 0.3-0.4db differencial is the common threshold among seasoned audiophiles/musicians, and that would also depends on the music/tone, frequencies and SPL.
Very interesting.
Never witnessed a 0.1db differencial identification, though. And 1db is a lot, i think... I personnaly consider that 0.3-0.4db differencial is the common threshold among seasoned audiophiles/musicians, and that would also depends on the music/tone, frequencies and SPL.
Last edited:
While a initial test should be without any 'training' (really this is hard to do - most folks there are probably audio enthusiasts and may have even participated in tests like this before) if after given some 'training' the participants still can't differentiate between the two successfully then that only adds supporting evidence to the conclusion one is unable to tell the difference.
(...) there are fundamental differences in the way audio and visual reproductions such as a photograph are compared, photographs can be compared side-by-side and simultaneously whereas audio must be compared sequentially, as echoic memory is known to fade within seconds.
Yes. That.
That's the whole reason why our hobby is corrupted. Instead of simultaneous comparisons, we are condemned to ineffective sequential comparisons.
That's the whole problem.
Yes. That.
That's the whole reason why our hobby is corrupted. Instead of simultaneous comparisons, we are condemned to ineffective sequential comparisons.
That's the whole problem.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Short-term and long term ABX work very differently. I would agree that very short sound samples are probably best for identifying small differences. But, I might like to loop that short sample and play it repeatedly in order to help me absorb whatever there is to absorb about it.
Then switching to a different file may stand out as more different.
So, even in fairly short-term ABX there can may be some benefit from using different periods of time for different purposes.
On the other hand, when I think of long-term ABX I think of when I replaced my old DAC-1 with a DAC-3. The DAC-3 sounded slightly different, and my son who normally doesn't notice small differences as much as I do also noticed a little difference. We were both quite accustomed to the DAC-1 and that seemed to make the sound of the DAC-3 more noticeable by way of comparison, although the difference is quite small (a slight sheen on the overall sound). According to Benchmark Media, the difference in sound is probably due differences in how the DACs respond to intersample overs, something confirmed as audible by ABX testing at Benchmark. Personally, I'm not completely sure if that little bit of sheen is exclusively a function of intersample overs, but maybe that's all there is to it.
The point is that there is no one difference that can be suggested in advance to look out for between DACs - each DAC in a pair of DACs being compared will have different strengths/weaknesses & it's impossible to say what they will be. One needs to have experience/training in the various aspects to look for & choose music which exposes this with the intention of nailing down a SPECIFIC difference in a SPECIFIC part of the music in sighted listening, prior to the blind test. Going into the type of blind test as is being described here - A/B comparison of short music segments - & expecting a difference to appear is nest to impossible. How many segments of 10 secs or less in a 3 minute song do you listen to? There are 18 such segments. Now in each segment, there are a number of musical streams & sounds. The nature of auditory perception is that we can only focus attentively on one or two of these streams - the other sounds are outside of our attention (it's called inattentional deafness) - so we are only paying attention to a limited part of each segment. So we are looking for a sound to pop out into conscious attention between two such segments. Any idea how many segments it takes before boredom/distraction sets in? Does this sound like a tall order?
Visual perception was mentioned earlier but it was misleading. The example was given of two TVs side by side,displaying the same picture & we can judge their picture quality by doing quick back & forth view of them. See the numerous problems with this analogy when we compare what ABX audio testing involves?
First we don't have two audio stream side by side playing - we have one 10 sec clip followed after a delay of the same audio clip played through the other DAC.
Would you be happy comparing two TVs where you played one 10 sec snippet & then the other TV played the same 10 sec snippet?
This is why one needs to establish a specific difference at a specific place, sighted & if that doesn't work out in the blind test, find another segment & repeat - gets very boring, very quickly & hey presto there's no difference!!
Huh? I'm not sure you understood the link? First off, jonbon asked for just one example of blind tests which differentiated between DACs & I gave it but heard nothing more from him on this - I'm not pushing it, I just wondered had he read it & asked him a number of times but got no answer.
What was tested in that link was exactly what jonbon is doing - sighted & blind testing of two DAcs. They did this over a year & for the first 3 meet ups declared no difference. It was only on the final meet up that they heard differences. This is inattentional deafness in action - they were deaf to the differences that were always there. People think that we hear & are conscious of all the sound hitting our ears at every moment in time - we aren't - we have a limited working memory which has a direct bearing on the short auditory memory we have - the echoic memory which is what jonbon suggests is the best way to compare audio samples.
You are displaying major defensiveness here - you obviously consider yourself as being scientific but yet you display the opposite here - preferring your "beliefs" to any real attempts at a scientific approach or even a discussion.
What discussion with you? You have avoided all my questions & deflected to jokes or other tactics so your "intelligent constructive" discussion with me never happened in the first place for you to suggest that you would be discontinuing it
Getting back to what can or can't be proven with ABX testing, in the test you did some people seem ready to conclude there is no audible difference between the DACs you tested.
But, as a thought experiment, suppose you brought the DACs over here, and using my amp and speakers, I could repeatedly identify DAC differences using ABX testing. What would that mean for the truth of what you have thus far proved? Would it mean it's true now, but it might be false tomorrow that the DACs you tested have no audible differences? Would it actually ever have been true?
I think the problem I just tried to illustrate above is why some people might say that the ABX test you conducted did not prove the DACs have no audible differences. Rather, it failed to prove the DACs do have audible differences. Hopefully, it makes more sense to say it that way when viewed over time and with different experimenters.
But, as a thought experiment, suppose you brought the DACs over here, and using my amp and speakers, I could repeatedly identify DAC differences using ABX testing. What would that mean for the truth of what you have thus far proved? Would it mean it's true now, but it might be false tomorrow that the DACs you tested have no audible differences? Would it actually ever have been true?
I think the problem I just tried to illustrate above is why some people might say that the ABX test you conducted did not prove the DACs have no audible differences. Rather, it failed to prove the DACs do have audible differences. Hopefully, it makes more sense to say it that way when viewed over time and with different experimenters.
Last edited:
What i see is a market that is collapsing.
Audiophiles are getting older (and they eventually die)... Younger people are less interested than we were in 70's, 80's, 90's... Portable devices, headphones and soundbars are the leading products now... HiFi boutiques are closing or are struggling...
Not because audio shows are filled with 100,000$ systems that these systems do sells..
For maybe the last 15-20 years, it's almost a hobby by itself to start a business based on that hobby (!).
Basically, it's glorified crafting. But it's not because you're putting a price tag on something that is making that a business.
A business is something that answers a problem. It's something that will interests as much people as possible (volume) for as much $ possible (profit margin) over the longest time possible (lifespan of said business, a minimum to recover the money invested to start).
Ain't easy.
And non-audiophiles people are looking at us like extra-terrestrials. If you add a 100k price tag, you're just throwing yourself out of the game. Unless you have a 50-years reputation based on multi-millions invested in marketing.
In fact, non-audiophiles people (including the potential new audiophile generation) are discouraged, unimpressed and just bored to death by the lack of impressive results and quality/price ratio.
You bring your 10yo son to a car show, he will be extremely excited by the Ferraris, Porsches and Mclarens, compared to the usual Toyotas... HE WILL UNDERSTAND the huge difference between a 20k product and a 200k product.
In an audio show ?
Nope.
Excitation level at the lowest.
What's left, if not pure, provable, quality?
SPL?
You don't need big money for that... Just buy PA stuff and you're good to go.
...That market is collapsing because he has slowly cut his wrists, after being bitten by an oily snake.
I think you're way off base on that one. Being a younger person (29) I think a lot of what your noticing is the result of things getting pretty good, there just isn't the drastic difference between inexpensive equipment and highend stuff. Earbuds are pretty damn good - huge advancements in just my life. Soundbars are very good and getting better. Portable devices sound better and better.
You go to most electronics stores and you can try all the headphones - big change - I remember when I was younger getting the poor employee to unbox all the headphones so I could try them. People do care about quality, but the minimum sounds pretty good. I think this thread is proof of just how good the minimum is these days. Sure it's not audiophile but it's sure a lot better than what you could get at the same price point in the 70/80/90s.
And maybe some things have to do with the type of music that folks are consuming. It's all digital, all tweaked and 'perfected' so there isn't really a reference in the same way you would have with classical music and a orchestra.
Things are just different but I don't think the love of a enjoyable sound has gone anywhere.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.