And tongue. Remember, snakes use it to sense the next prey. I supposed they can smell the money too.
Attachments
It's not a joke, blind test is not proof that there is no sound difference, in the vast majority of cases the results of blind tests are misleading and ridiculous, at best it is an expression of the absolute lowest common denominator.
i also claim that no sensible developer DIY or manufacturer uses blind test as a basis of decision for their development and it makes a lot of sense they would have stopped all progress in audio.
I suggest, on the other hand, that one should use and learn the reference / (the live music) we have to determine the development in hi-fi and this is best done without blind testing.
The sound difference itself does not matter, it is which way the sound difference points in relation to the goal of true-to-life reproduction of live music that matters.
In your opinion, which you are entitled to.
Claiming is easy. Proving it is a different ball game.
[citation needed]
If you can't hear any difference in a blind trial, how do you explain that you can hear a difference in a sighted trial? Wouldn't it be pretty clear that if you can't tell any difference (or you don't have a clear preference between A and B) in a blind trial, any difference perceived in the sighted trial would be due to something you see and not something you hear?
I agree. I use measurements in my design decisions.
Sure. And if you don't have a clear preference for which equipment - A or B - comes the closest to the live performance in a blind trial, then what?
As I said in Post #13, typical listeners use the equipment in a listening room, not in a blind trial, so looks do matter. But I hope we can also agree that looks don't affect what comes out of the speakers. That's why blind tests still have value. A blind test allows you to isolate audio from the visual impression.
Tom
Allow me to post another point of view.
Some years back I was a judge at the Midwest speaker contest held by Parts Express. The three member judging panel was Jerry McNutt from Eminence, Don Keele and me. We listened to a lot of speakers, it seemed like a couple dozen pairs. The listening tests were completely sighted and we even had the chance to examine all the speakers beforehand.
While a fair number of speakers sounded like you might expect by looking at them, many did not at all. We were routinely surprised at how little a speaker's sound matched its looks. Some sounded better, some worse than expected from their looks - or at least different. In many ways, bass, midrange, tonality, stereo image - we were surprised when the music played. We put that in our notes and commented to each other about the surprises.
That taught me a valuable lesson. We do judge with our eyes, but our ears often surprise us.
How do you know there is a difference if you cannot hear it, blind or otherwise? This makes zero sense.
And, can you explain why you find them misleading or ridiculous? You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it would be nice if we would know if this is just some random opinion or whether there's some substance in it.
Agreed. It is too expensive and doesn't add anything to the enjoyment of the diy-er or the business bottom line. A good story sells MUCH better than a technical blind test report.
You mix up two things. I agree that one should develop one's appreciation of music. Development in HiFi is something else. One the one hand, it is all about marketing products that stand out from the competition, and while they should sound well, most of the factors involved have nothing to do with how they sound. This can be easily proven; I leave that to your own intelligence. On the other hand, if you want to develop HiFi to make it actually sound better, there's no way around some controlled testing which normally should be blind. Please note that a well controlled blind test is actually an objective listening test.
You have your work cut out here, I challenge you to translate listening differences you may think you hear in a non-controlled test, into a design brief for an audio designer.
Not mentioning the fact that what you think are audible differences are totally unreliable anyway.
Jan
My view is that the most reliable test for audible differences is a well-controlled blind test.
But I know that there are many individuals who come very close to reliably identify minuscule audible differences. Individuals who have demonstrated this, and who have shown the ability to design very good sounding equipment, get my trust much faster then others that just throw up random statements that are pure opinion, contain no facts, and demonstrate a total ignorance of perception.
Opinions of members of the latter group I tend to dismiss out of hand.
Jan
If, among other things, you sit and change the "lead" on resistors (picture) to silver wire and think it makes a huge difference and at the same time think this amplifier (picture) is the best sounding amplifier at all, then something suggests that changing something yourself that is CLEAR to see, can and will impress the "believers" and then it will always be an improvement.
We can discuss blind testing with Thor2 for the next 10 years and it will not change anything. (Many have tried the last many years)
Even if a hifi interested man born without eyes says he can not hear difference, then thor will just tell that his ears or setup is not good enough.
When I did my test which he dumped in, was his excuse that I had converted the high rez files to wav (1411 kbps, 48000, 16 bit - CD quality) and that in his opinion makes the sound so "gray" that it can not be used for testing.
There is an excuse for everything in life, some are just over the edge
We can discuss blind testing with Thor2 for the next 10 years and it will not change anything. (Many have tried the last many years)
Even if a hifi interested man born without eyes says he can not hear difference, then thor will just tell that his ears or setup is not good enough.
When I did my test which he dumped in, was his excuse that I had converted the high rez files to wav (1411 kbps, 48000, 16 bit - CD quality) and that in his opinion makes the sound so "gray" that it can not be used for testing.
There is an excuse for everything in life, some are just over the edge
Last edited:
And tongue. Remember, snakes use it to sense the next prey. I supposed they can smell the money too.
Maybe that's why it's called snake oil
@ Thomas C: The funny thing is, when you know a bit about perception and psychology, it is only logical that the builder of that contraption finds it the best amp ever!
The big mistake, if you don't have that background, is to think that therefor it is also the best sounding amp for everybody else!
Jan
The big mistake, if you don't have that background, is to think that therefor it is also the best sounding amp for everybody else!
Jan
The size could also be due to the fact that the power supply was huge, several farads.
But maybe it is also imagination that this has a positive effect on the sound.
The output filter was a 6-order bessel filter which emulated the way the sound unrolls through air, all capacitors were connected in star point format, for perfect and even utilization of the large capacity.
plus a lot of other technical details , that I can understand only work because you know they are there.
Last edited:
Though I know the statistics I don't think it needs to remain as special as all that. I'm pretty sure that many more could do this if they were more oriented to looking at that place in mind where they hear a note and then move to create the sound. In that area of transition from thought to perceptible action. Usually ignored / not on the radar.
If you can sing on tune you should be able to develop it. Picking a time more or less arbitrarily, I'd say inside one year, on average.
Ok, I will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.