Maybe. I know that I am highly focused on midrange. It's the second thing I listen for.
Oh he was cheating, was proven to be cheating and we haven't seen him since. There was a phase where these tests (which are after all a bit of fun and to hopefully make people think) were regularly being examined and ranked based on what audacity showed rather than listening. I think one or two people got their kicks from p*ssing on people's chips*. It's all a hobby at the end of the day.
*Sorry if being too colloquial here.
Not for me. It's how I make money to feed my cats and poodle, amongst other things.
During tests people often forget about other components in the chain, like power amp that goes after a preamp in question. Power amp can have a non-linear input resistance, so benefits from a buffer. Also, it can clip sharply on rare peaks, so soft clipping of the preamp makes it sound less artificial, and so on.
Not for me. It's how I make money to feed my cats and poodle, amongst other things.
Sorry about that, must be awful...
Not for me. It's how I make money to feed my cats and poodle, amongst other things.
"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is." (SY)
You conclude that participants of the test (High End listener?) found a 0.5% THD preamp (conforming to stated requirements) to be subjectively no difference to a wire with gain.
I hope you understand the implications of that statement. People who trust you will now regard JB's SRPP tube preamp as one of the ultimate "Gold Standard".
Sighted did not matter..... it is the level of THD that was listened to and when i could not detect a change, that was MY limit in MY system.
THx-RNMarsh
During tests people often forget about other components in the chain, like power amp that goes after a preamp in question. Power amp can have a non-linear input resistance, so benefits from a buffer. Also, it can clip sharply on rare peaks, so soft clipping of the preamp makes it sound less artificial, and so on.
Input Z may not be constant also. may be low Z at high freq... leading to extra distortion from pre.
More uncontrolled interfacing issues....
-RM
I´m not sure about the chronological order for every member as i didn´t saw the circuit first but just PMA´s post about "one is tube the other wire" (words to this effect) and the link to the zipped files.
No reference file was given, so listeners only have to evaluate the two files and were asked for identification (which file was "through wire" which one was "through tube" ).
In this case the listener judges from his expectation based on his experience due to the informations available about the reasons -> bias.
Look, I also suggested to post a Foobar ABX protocol to verify that the tester was able to tell the difference. In fact, this is the only proof to me. If there is a positive ABX result, then I take the remarks about the sound serious. If not, I do not. Sorry. The link to thread with the test is in my signature.
In a similar test, the participants were not able to tell the difference (in ABX) even against the original data file, with no additional D/A - A/D path. I consider the excuses as a folklore.
In a similar test, the participants were not able to tell the difference (in ABX) even against the original data file, with no additional D/A - A/D path. I consider the excuses as a folklore.
Last edited:
Be careful with conclusions from nonpositive results; a negative result is at first just that the null hypothesis could not be rejected, if you analyze the data under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.
If the null hypothesis can´t rejected it means that the observed data is compatible with the null hypothesis but it _does_ _not_ tell you that the null hypothesis _is_ true.
So in reality you don´t know if someone could hear a difference, instead you just know that the null hypothesis could not be rejected (for this particular test).
If the null hypothesis can´t rejected it means that the observed data is compatible with the null hypothesis but it _does_ _not_ tell you that the null hypothesis _is_ true.
So in reality you don´t know if someone could hear a difference, instead you just know that the null hypothesis could not be rejected (for this particular test).
I am still puzzled by the "this is not science" line of reasoning. Using and insisting on the use of "blind tests" means using an instrument from the scientific toolbox, so that is fine, but using positive controls is too much science?
Not telling the listeners in advance about the EUT would be too much science?
Otoh conclusions from this "non scientific tests" are as fare reaching as it can get? There seem to be some inherent contradictions in these arguments.
Not telling the listeners in advance about the EUT would be too much science?
Otoh conclusions from this "non scientific tests" are as fare reaching as it can get? There seem to be some inherent contradictions in these arguments.
I am not sure which conclusions you are talking about here. Looking back over the last 10 years there are some commonalities, which all appear to related to people
1. Claiming they can hear things that do not seem possible
2. Failing to demonstrate this on the files posted for fun
3. Making reams of excuses after the reveal.
It is very rare that a golden ear says 'my my that's interesting, maybe I have been deluding myself all these years'.
I don't think any conclusions about human hearing can be made, but sure someone versed in the art can come up with conclusions on human nature and the role of the ego in online fora
.
IME, most people like distortion, it's the levels that vary.
Small amounts of H2 and H3 change the subjective presentation and usually
not in a bad way. I'm not talking sledge hammer amounts like the Culture
Vulture, but small amounts, generally less than 0.01%.
We did listening tests, many years ago of adding very small amounts of H2
and H3. The results were very surprising and counter intuitive. It all started
when I was making modifications to a power amp we were designing to
reduce the distortion. It actually sounded worse and subjectively as if the
distortion had been increased. This was quite perplexing at first so we then
decided to set up a circuit to enable addition of relatively small amounts of
H2 and H3 (either or both) and play around with it, see what happens.
On that particular system, the results were that adding a very small amount
of H3 sounded subjectively cleaner and more natural. Adding H2 was a bit
hit and miss, it sounded good with certain types of material but not on other.
It seemed to work better with sparse, uncluttered music like for example
solo acoustic material but fared less well with very complex material.
T
Not really, it only matters when someone posts a subjective statement and says "I'm right" rather than "I prefer"...
Mimbling off in another direction I came across this Music in the Round #94: Benchmark & Marantz | Stereophile.com. I have started reading Kal's reviews a bit more recently as he is willing to try things slightly off the beaten path for reviewers. In this case trying a miniDSP to provide multichannel output via a stack of Benchmark DACs and power amps and comparing to a std prepro solution. In particular what was interesting was a preference for higher gain in the DAC and low gain in the power amp.
All too rich for me and I don't have enough 5.1 SACDs to justify surround sound, but the review is both interesting and good news from a number of perspectives. Esp if you can't stand the leviathon prepros on the market today!
All too rich for me and I don't have enough 5.1 SACDs to justify surround sound, but the review is both interesting and good news from a number of perspectives. Esp if you can't stand the leviathon prepros on the market today!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.