Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?

Can you hear a difference between the two test files

  • I can hear a difference, but have no ABX result

    Votes: 12 50.0%
  • I cannot hear a difference and have no ABX result

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • I can hear a difference and have an ABX result

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • I cannot hear a difference and have an ABX result

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
...the argument was about the delusion of reviewers/writers and readers to believe in audible differences that were not based on soundfield differences.

People clearly have no problem believing in audible differences when they hear the sonic details for themselves. Disbelief is reserved for when other people report hearing the exact same type of things. That's when all the arguments about why it must be impossible start coming out.

Oh, well. Nobody is claiming that humans are not hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Therefore it seemed to be kind of paradigma change, similar to the recent discussion in the blowtorch thread about (allegedly) existing audible differences when comparing old and new opamps in (nonpathologic behaving) circuits.


Can't speak for others, but in my case it was an interesting experiment that needs more (personal) investigation. I think it has indicated that I listen for different things than others so possibly would benefit from some training in that area, which opens up a larger can of fresh worms.


But the fact we have files for listening and measurements is a refreshing change from someone glomming something in then claiming veils are lifted and windows onto the sound cleaned.
 
Little evidence of that in this thread.

Agreed, not this thread. Maybe Blowtorch...

I see few parallels between a published review and a discussion on a DIY forum.

Doesn't have to be published, could be a listening results claimed another member. Its happened to me and to other members. Someone describes hearing something just like people are doing in this thread, and other people argue it isn't possible.

For example, just the other day someone claimed in a dac thread: "Unless this is early 90's, one properly functioning DAC sounding better than another properly functioning DAC has been debunked by level matched double blind listening tests."

Would anyone here agree with the above argument?
 
Bill,
Don't know if you ever made it out to California. If so, you missed an opportunity to be surprised. I can show that two channels of a 4-channel dac can be made to sound different from the other two channels by small changes in power supply configuration. Filters are the same for all four channels.
 
.....
For example, just the other day someone claimed in a dac thread: "Unless this is early 90's, one properly functioning DAC sounding better than another properly functioning DAC has been debunked by level matched double blind listening tests."

Would anyone here agree with the above argument?
I thought it was this thread but can't find it now - maybe deleted? but I do remember PMA stating that he did Foobar ABX listening test & posting the results - AFAIR his results did not show that he could reliably differentiate between these two preamps even though he stated before these ABX tests that he clearly hears a distinct & obvious clarity in one preamp.

Do the ABX results debunk his sighted listening? I know an open mind would have to consider the possibility that the clarity he was hearing was a delusion just as one has to also consider the possibility that Foobar ABX suppresses his ability to discern audible differences
 
Last edited:
I thought it was this thread but can't find it now - maybe deleted? but I do remember PMA stating that he did Foobar ABX listening test & posting the results - AFAIR his results did not show that he could reliably differentiate between these two preamps even though he stated before these ABX tests that he clearly hears a distinct & obvious clarity in one preamp.

Do the ABX results debunk his sighted listening? I know an open mind would have to consider the possibility that the clarity he was hearing was a delusion just as one has to also consider the possibility that Foobar ABX suppresses his ability to discern audible differences

You only do not try and you are creating faked reality -

Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
11/16 is not so bad

I think no one else posted his result in this thread, you not excluded.
 
You only do not try and you are creating faked reality -

Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
11/16 is not so bad

I think no one else posted his result in this thread, you not excluded.

OK, apologies
It was this post I seemed to remember
In a sighted test, I have a feeling that I can quite clearly tell the difference in sound of both preamps. When doing ABX test, I get permanently results between 3/8 and 5/8, so just random results. I will try harder .

In your linked post to ABX results you don't show 11/16 - it's incorrect to combine the results of two separate runs of tests like this. I believe 20 ABX trials is consider minimum in one straight run for statistical significance - maybe you could not achieve a 'good' run of 20 trials given this requirement for "my best concentration on sound:" as you stated? For a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of 10 you would need to get 14 out of 16 correct - for a 99% confidence level 15 out of 16. With 20 trials 95% is 17 out of 20 & 99% is 18 out of 20

Do you think others would be able to achieve 95% or 99% confidence level in Foobar ABX?

I'm just asking this question in relation to Markw4 post reporting this comment he came across "Unless this is early 90's, one properly functioning DAC sounding better than another properly functioning DAC has been debunked by level matched double blind listening tests."

Do you still clearly hear a clarity to one preamp that is obvious? If so why isn't a success rate of 99% in ABX tests anticipated?
 
Last edited:
Pavel, I have in the last few days totally altered my power feed/power filtering arrangements including screened isolation transformer power feed to the laptop music source and this has quite 'transformed' this system and taken it to a whole new level.
I will take another listen to your files in the next few days and let you know what I find.
 
I'm having to learn/understand a whole new system sound, bigger, brighter, clearer, louder and more powerful sounding than what I had which was already darn good by any standards.
This is repeat of an old experiment and done better, I should have built this new power box ages ago, I will try to find time to listen tomorrow.
 
People clearly have no problem believing in audible differences when they hear the sonic details for themselves. Disbelief is reserved for when other people report hearing the exact same type of things. That's when all the arguments about why it must be impossible start coming out.

Oh, well. Nobody is claiming that humans are not hypocrites.

Obviously.:)

But still quite amazing to watch it in real time; it seems to be a variation of the old:

it is impossible
ok, can be in theory but not in practice
ok, can be in practice and we always said so......

@billshurv
Can't speak for others, but in my case it was an interesting experiment that needs more (personal) investigation. I think it has indicated that I listen for different things than others so possibly would benefit from some training in that area, which opens up a larger can of fresh worms.

But the fact we have files for listening and measurements is a refreshing change from someone glomming something in then claiming veils are lifted and windows onto the sound cleaned.

Sure, but isn't that a minor element compared to the before stated (near) impossiblity of an audible difference in case of measured numbers well below the established hearing thresholds in the audio band?

Interestingly the bandwidth was the main difference also between the two ciruits in our (hidden) preamplifier double blind test.

I'd say quite similar to the case of audible differences between opamps; we all can surely remember that audiophiles were ridiculed for years when rolling opamps, but all of a sudden it is taken for granted that a newer opamp with better specs leads to audible differences and is preferable.

Suprisingly audiophiles were still mocked in case they did not choose/prefer one of these newer/better opamps.

Further I'm sure we can agree that more refined sonical descriptions (beside any lifted veils) did not get more appreciation and to have some downloadable files for comparisions IMO didn't change that.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
all of a sudden it is taken for granted that a newer opamp with better specs leads to audible differences and is preferable..


That's an enourmous leap given the sample size here. Nothing can be taken from this test as far as I am concerned. I did the test unblinded so my results are totally void. But I am interested to know if I can pick the files out with some form of blinding. But I am just not setup for that sort of test at the moment.


I should also re-iterate that I accept the bias of pride of ownership so I would personally build such a preamp with the top opamps because

a) I can
b) I would know that I had put in the best I could afford and use that bias to my advantage.



My biggest intrigue though is the fleeting glimpses of evidence that people do listen in very different ways. It's not a suprise, but this is the first time it has appeared in the open for me personally.
 
<snip>
11/16 is not so bad

<snip>

If you had only done these two tests on the preamps I'd agree, but according to your description you've had a few (or many?) more done in the past.

@mmerrill99
<snip>

In your linked post to ABX results you don't show 11/16 - it's incorrect to combine the results of two separate runs of tests like this.

No, generally it is correct to combine two seperate runs, provided every run itself is objective, reliable and valid.
Independence can be questionable so sometimes it is better to choose another statistical test that does not rely on the independence of trials.

I believe 20 ABX trials is consider minimum in one straight run for statistical significance .....

Of course it depends on the significance level (SL) that one wants to achieve, but for the usual SL = 0.05 even 5 trials are sufficient (actually testing on 0.032 niveau). SL is only considering alpha-errors so beta-errors are neglected, but if we take the beta-errors into account even 20 trials don't help much (but that depends on the listeners ability to detect differences if existing).

- maybe you could not achieve a 'good' run of 20 trials given this requirement for "my best concentration on sound:" as you stated? For a confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of 10 you would need to get 14 out of 16 correct - for a 99% confidence level 15 out of 16. With 20 trials 95% is 17 out of 20 & 99% is 18 out of 20 <snip>

Not sure what the confidence interval length of 10 means, as usually the confidence interval would be an interval for the p-value (as opposed to the assumed p=0.5 under the null hypothesis)
 
People definitely focus differently during critical listening sessions, my view that it can become an affliction is confirmed in my mind, and the variation of what was and wasn't heard and individual preferences means to me that a published review is probably no different. What has made this thread interesting for me is that it seems that the transfer function of a perfectly well behaved amplifier is audible and very high accuracy is most likely something to be sought after. The fact that measurements and files were provided (how often does that happen?) for us to listen to, comment on and discuss has, I think, been useful to those who participated positively. Thank you Pavel.
 
Last edited:
If you had only done these two tests on the preamps I'd agree, but according to your description you've had a few (or many?) more done in the past.

Yes, until I was able to find a part of the sample recording that allowed for me to tell the difference quite reliably. Then, I got similar results as posted, repeatedly, but always limited to 8 trials, as I could not keep concentration to make 16 trials in a row.
So, first trials were something like initial preparations. I agree that if I did not have this training time, I would not be able to tell the difference as I did later. It is not so easy in ABX.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.