Who Has Done a True DBT Audio Test?

This means that you used test gear to ensure level matching, etc.

If you've done this:

When?

What gear?

Who was present?

Testing protocol?

Results?

Interestingly my speaker cable swap back in the naive days was non-blind. If I had heard any difference sighted I would have done a blind one. (Oddly in hindsight that approach follows the James Randi model---he proposes doing preliminary tests with fewer controls, which must be passed before a new test is performed with the controls fully engaged.) Done some single-blind tests but nothing too interesting, and I've done some hydrogenaudio style DBTs on MP3 encoding for kicks. (On one hand it is easy to do because it's all computer based; on the other hand it was a cheapo sound card, even by Arny Kruger standards.)

You would think that with the objectivists here hangin' around this forum always telling everyone that they must do true DBT tests that they would be running to post here in this thread and tell us of their true DBT tests!!!

Where are they?

You would think all the subjectivists attacking the DBT would have at least some experience with them too?

How many here have never even done a level matched A/B comparison?

I have done numerous DBTs over the years with cables, NFB, absolute phase,pre-amps and so on.

Shawn

You would think all the subjectivists attacking the DBT would have at least some experience with them too?

How many here have never even done a level matched A/B comparison?

I have done numerous DBTs over the years with cables, NFB, absolute phase,pre-amps and so on.

Shawn

Thanks Shawn. Can you give us say two examples of true DBTs you have done, answering my questions in my first post.

Simple one... testing audibility of level differences. Same clip of pink noise vs. itself lowered in volume 1dB using PCABX and Etymotic ER4S headphones. Result 25 of 25.

Comparing Lexicon MC-1 vs. MC-12 level matched (meaning under 0.1dB in both channels) into QSC ABX box in 2 channel no processing (no bass management, nothing). First days I passed all the tests. As I recall I did it 2 or 3 tests with 25 trials each test.

Next day when I tried again I was tired/stressed from work and failed the test and knew I was going to fail while taking it. Took the test again later in the day and passed again.

Now.....

Have you even taken an ABX test?

Have you ever performed a comparison between two devices then repeated the same comparison this time level matching to 0.1dB and experienced how your subjective impression of the differences may have changed?

Have you ever compared the exact same component against itself with say a 1/2 dB level difference to hear how subjectively that alters what you hear? And that is even when you know the only difference is a volume difference.

Hint: Subtle level differences do not sound like level difference... it sounds like changes in focus, better clarity, more dynamics...etc...etc...

Those that have never done this simply have no comprehension of how subtle level differences alter the final subjective impression of 'sound quality.' Those that have never done this don't understand why some people harp on level matching during comparisons.

Those that have done this understand.

Shawn

You would think all the subjectivists attacking the DBT would have at least some experience with them too?

How many here have never even done a level matched A/B comparison?

I have done numerous DBTs over the years with cables, NFB, absolute phase,pre-amps and so on.

Shawn


Since the thread starter is on my ignore list I couldnt see what he wanted. So I will quote you. I have done lots of DBT level matced etc. On lots of pro gear. We get stuff all the time from companies wanting us to buy from them. We put them through a whole testing scheme. From just setting it up and listening to measurements to DBT. We would be fools not to. Sure you can throw some gear in and go WOW it sounds great or WOW it sucks. So it is always good to know why. Out of 5 guys in a department we do not always agree. So we test things.

Simple one... testing audibility of level differences. Same clip of pink noise vs. itself lowered in volume 1dB using PCABX and Etymotic ER4S headphones. Result 25 of 25.

Comparing Lexicon MC-1 vs. MC-12 level matched (meaning under 0.1dB in both channels) into QSC ABX box in 2 channel no processing (no bass management, nothing). First days I passed all the tests. As I recall I did it 2 or 3 tests with 25 trials each test.

Next day when I tried again I was tired/stressed from work and failed the test and knew I was going to fail while taking it. Took the test again later in the day and passed again.

Now.....

Have you even taken an ABX test?

Have you ever performed a comparison between two devices then repeated the same comparison this time level matching to 0.1dB and experienced how your subjective impression of the differences may have changed?

Have you ever compared the exact same component against itself with say a 1/2 dB level difference to hear how subjectively that alters what you hear? And that is even when you know the only difference is a volume difference.

Hint: Subtle level differences do not sound like level difference... it sounds like changes in focus, better clarity, more dynamics...etc...etc...

Those that have never done this simply have no comprehension of how subtle level differences alter the final subjective impression of 'sound quality.' Those that have never done this don't understand why some people harp on level matching during comparisons.

Those that have done this understand.

Shawn

Yes, I do understand. Often I am testing stuff by myself so I level match as best I can. But a few times these past years, Don Hoglund of Granite Audio has come over with test gear, checking dB, and we've taken turns not knowing which was what. Including some years ago when we demod his then new Granite Audio 657 tube CD player vs my then Theta CB2 Superior DACs vs my then Sony SCD777ES SACD player, with redbook CD via the tube CD player firmly winning the evaluations blindly.

How elaborate or sophisticated does the test gear need to be to enable accurate level matching to 0.1dB? Is there a meter on the market that could be practically used by a dealer or home user for example?

Sean

"Often I am testing stuff by myself so I level match as best I can. "

'As best I can' is not level matched to 0.1dB.

"Don Hoglund of Granite Audio has come over with test gear, checking dB, and we've taken turns not knowing which was what. Including some years ago when we demod his then new Granite Audio 657 tube CD player vs my then Theta CB2 Superior DACs vs my then Sony SCD777ES SACD player, with redbook CD via the tube CD player firmly winning the evaluations blindly."

So that is a no. You haven't done DBT. Single blind is not the same as double blind.

Shawn

"Is there a meter on the market that could be practically used by a dealer or home user for example?"

If you are comparing anything but speakers there are hundreds of them.

You use a multimeter, not a SPL meter. Match voltages at the speakers to 1% and you are matched to 0.1dB. A $20 digital multimeter from Radio Shack and a CD with a 1kHz test tone (many test CDs have this) is all you need to measure levels to this precision.

Shawn

"Is there a meter on the market that could be practically used by a dealer or home user for example?"

If you are comparing anything but speakers there are hundreds of them.

You use a multimeter, not a SPL meter. Match voltages at the speakers to 1% and you are matched to 0.1dB. A $20 digital multimeter from Radio Shack and a CD with a 1kHz test tone (many test CDs have this) is all you need to measure levels to this precision.

Shawn

Thanks Shawn.

First days I passed all the tests. As I recall I did it 2 or 3 tests with 25 trials each test.

Next day when I tried again I was tired/stressed from work and failed the test and knew I was going to fail while taking it. Took the test again later in the day and passed again.For those who complain of time pressure, unfamiliar system & source material as problems with DBTs, note that Shawn tested at his leisure, over a course of days, on his own system, using any source material he wanted. No pressure, no unfamiliar gear nor recordings.

Sanjay

Interestingly my speaker cable swap back in the naive days was non-blind. If I had heard any difference sighted I would have done a blind one. (Oddly in hindsight that approach follows the James Randi model---he proposes doing preliminary tests with fewer controls, which must be passed before a new test is performed with the controls fully engaged.) Done some single-blind tests but nothing too interesting, and I've done some hydrogenaudio style DBTs on MP3 encoding for kicks. (On one hand it is easy to do because it's all computer based; on the other hand it was a cheapo sound card, even by Arny Kruger standards.)

Has to be blind or you will get an effect. The effects are about expectation. Expectation can take the form of a positive result placebo, or a negative result nocebo. Also there is experimenter expectation effect where the conductor of the experiment effects the outcome. Then the Hawthorne Effect, where simply watching people effects their performance. Some experimental pardigms actually involve mutiple task. One is the actual task that is being measured by the subjects and the other a diversion to mask expectation . The problem with testing under current technology is that there is no direct way to interface with the human nervous system. You have to rely upon the "reports" of the subjects. Imagine doing drug trials and determining the results by polling the subjects as to wheter the drug made them feel better:D?! With drug trials, you can measure physiological changes to determine the effects of the experimental variable. This is why DBT work well in such paradigms.

For those who complain of time pressure, unfamiliar system & source material as problems with DBTs, note that Shawn tested at his leisure, over a course of days, on his own system, using any source material he wanted. No pressure, no unfamiliar gear nor recordings.

Sanjay This is an example where DBT can be and should be used. Test what you are using at home in surrounding that are not stressful can prove very useful. As someone who's work has been published in the Journal of Exp. Psychology, I could go on and on about the effects of testing pressures on human subjective measures. Boring stuff to me and likely the same old boring fights. Not interested. Going to listen to some Jazz.

I've done similar tests to what Shawn has done. I've also done tests which weren't DBT with other people where they had no idea a 'test' was going on. I'll give a couple of examples of that.

1) My son & I had gone shopping and picked up a few things including two of the same CD's. Later, we'd walked into a store and noticed the Bedini Clarifier. A salesperson approached us and proceeded to extol the benefits and technology of this remarkable product. He offered to let us hear a disc that'd been treated but I said, how about if we let you use one of ours? NP. He'd said he was familiar with the disc and would be able to offer his insights. So, while he subjected the disc to treatment, my son & I left the store momentarily so's I could have a smoke. Looking at each other, he said, how's about we do the old switcheroo. So, he opened the packaging of his CD, removed the CD, and kept it safely hidden. We reentered, examined the disc, and I told my son to hold it while we went to a room to listen. My son trailed slightly behind and effected the switch. The disc was then inserted into the player and we all listened. After awhile, things were turned off, the CD was returned, reinserted in the case, and placed back in the bag. We talked for a bit, with the saleman going on about how delicate the presentation was after it'd been treated. How much the instruments were delineated. The usual stuff. A pity he said that we hadn't listened to it beforehand. My son said he also had a copy of the same CD and asked if that would do? Explaining that since he was going back to college, that was the reason for two CD's. Of course! So he reaches into his bag and pulls out a CD and we listen again. The comments were decidedly more negative. The salesman never knew we listened to the same CD, my son having switched them again in the bag.

2) The PSA Harvester Story: A friend bought a pack and brought them over saying they scavenged up noise on the AC lines. Said it made a big improvement on his system and wanted to hear it on mine. So we plugged them in (they blink when they pick up frequencies in the 8-15 kHz region) and he said he could hear a difference. A more expansive soundstage if you will. However, I commented on how distracting the lights were and asked if we could move them to another room. Sure. So we gathered them up and I placed them in the lower outlets. They work no matter where you put them. We went back to listen and once again he commented on the soundstage again. Said the effect wasn't quite as strong but the soundstage had definitely opened up. He referred to that several times during the course of our listening and talking. He never paid much attention to the fact that earlier, I'd gone to get us something to drink and had turned the lights off in the room where the Harvesters were. The Harvesters happened to be located on the same circuit as the switch. Switch off = No power to the bottom outlets.

3) I've done essentially #1 where my son replaced Cardas interconnects with Parts Express' offerings. Even I didn't know he'd done that. The salesman & I were informed afterwards but prior to him commenting on how natural Cardas made everything sound. That soft annealed copper I guess. When asked why he did it, he replied, I wanted to see if they'd work in someone elses's stereo.

4) I've mentioned earlier how I'd given some RFI beads to friends to test out on their interconnects. 'Cept some of the beads had no ferrite in them. Dummy prototypes you see.

5) I've tested the effects of dampening the vibrations in an inverse manner. The CDP was relocated to a different room, other side of the wall actually, and I asked if people could hear the difference adding vibration made. That was done by placing a vibrator (yes, sex toy) on the top with some padding to muffle any sound it was making. They had to tell, within a few seconds, when it was on or not. No one could tell when it was on from the other room regardless of the settings on the toy. Even the setting 'gives orgasms to a corspse' did not elicit an accurate answer. It was not tested on a corpse.

Aren't Olympic and World records set under the most adverse pressure conditions possible Bulldogger? Was there any more pressure than Larry Bird telling Xavier Daniels that he was going to get the ball out of bounds, where he was going to shoot, and how much time there was going to be on the clock when he did? And I'm sure you know it's also a matter of practice along with heart and respiration rates too.

"And I'm sure you know it's also a matter of practice...."

I actually tend to think practice with an ABX makes one a better listener too. The more experience one gets 'hearing' how things like expectations and simple level difference can influence what they preceive then IMO the more educated a listener they become.

I also think practice actually taking ABXs also might improve a person's ability to pass the tests.

For those that have never actually compared level matched to 0.1dB may be unprepared for how much of a difference that actually makes in some comparisons. IOW... they were accustomed to much larger differences when simply A/Bing because of volume and when they get put in the situation of a proper ABX test and the variable of level matching is removed one of the key differentiators they were relying on earlier is gone. That is not to say there may not be other differences to hear of course but they might miss them if they get thrown by the level matching. Of course that is their own problem for not level matching in the first place. ;)

Also I think some may develop their own methods of taking an ABX test that better suits the individual. Some might like listening to long sections of music before switching, others might like listening to very small sections of music on repeat. Without experience taking ABX tests you do not really know which way will work out best for you. Likewise without doing some trials one doesn't really know which way they will prefer switching between A/B/X. You really wouldn't want to try to figure this out on your first 'all or nothing' ABX test. I certainly have my own prefered method of taking ABXs with regards to what I listen to and how I switch.

Shawn

Another common phenomenon in ABX testing is that the listener is often certain that he or she can hear a difference when switching between A and B, but that difference vanishes when switching between A and X and between B and X.

This really lays bare the expectation bias inherent in sighted comparisons.

Bob,

Which is why the X is there in the first place. When only doing A/B it is easy to claim differences are there. With the X in place the listener has to prove it.

Shawn

Has to be blind or you will get an effect. The effects are about expectation. Expectation can take the form of a positive result placebo, or a negative result nocebo.Great! So the power of suggestion is so strong that I managed to perceive that cheapo cables were just as good as Transparents. Glad to know that. Wow, I didn't know sighted tests were so useless! :)

Which is why the X is there in the first place. When only doing A/B it is easy to claim differences are there. With the X in place the listener has to prove it.I'm sure Bob understands that (as you know). But I think the point is that this is an interesting and striking side effect of ABX testing compared to other valid DBT protocols. In that sense it serves as a good teaching too as well as a good testing tool.

Bob,

Which is why the X is there in the first place. When only doing A/B it is easy to claim differences are there. With the X in place the listener has to prove it.

Shawn

How would a DBT involving a simple AB comparison where either A = B or A != B not generate a statistically significant result able to prove whether A is indeed different to B?

I would think such a test would be more suitable in identifying whether a difference exists (for example between cables) as opposed to identifying whether other effects exist, such as auditory memory with ABX.

I would be far more confident and far more willing to trust the result of a test conducted in such a manner, providing the switch from A to B is near instantaneous. I was hoping to set up such a test for my own current speaker cables (van den Hul's The Breeze - what is with vdH and their cringe inducing names?) in the hope of saving some money and resolving the issue for myself.

Here is a question for the other side...

Q: Do you believe that current state of the art technology has the capability to record two pieces of sound and compare them to determine differences in a manner that is more accurate than the human auditory system?

I am talking highest of the high end binaural recording system, digitally sampled at ta very high rate, then compared with a computer for differences.

"How would a DBT involving a simple AB comparison where either A = B or A != B not generate a statistically significant result able to prove whether A is indeed different to B?"

You know the identity of A and B. You can keep saying that A != B. There is no control to demonstrate that you actually can hear the difference. X is the blind identity, not A or B.

"I would think such a test would be more suitable in identifying whether a difference exists (for example between cables) as opposed to identifying whether other effects exist, such as auditory memory with ABX. I would be far more confident and far more willing to trust the result of a test conducted in such a manner, providing the switch from A to B is near instantaneous."

An ABX box allows for instantaneous switching between the three.

And you do not need to even listen to all three during an ABX box. I take them by listening to A and B for awhile to determine differences. Then when I actually start answering trials I only listen to A and X.

If there is no difference between A and X I answer A for the identity of X. If there is a difference then the identity of X must be B so I answer B. Once I start answering trials I typically never even listen to B.

Shawn

"How would a DBT involving a simple AB comparison where either A = B or A != B not generate a statistically significant result able to prove whether A is indeed different to B?"

You know the identity of A and B. You can keep saying that A != B. There is no control to demonstrate that you actually can hear the difference. X is the blind identity, not A or B.


If you kept answering that A != B then the final result will show that there is no difference (ie you were right about whether there was a difference at a rate no better than chance).


Once I start answering trials I typically never even listen to B.


In which case we are in complete agreement! Only our notation varies. Perhaps I should have described my test as AX where X could be either A or something else.

The reason I described the particular test format the way I did is because of audio tests I've heard conducted that were fairly strict ABX done in large groups. The test is restricted to listening to A then to B and then to X without swapping back and forth.

I would be much more willing to trust the results from the test conducted the way you describe. Conducted individually, with free swapping between A and X until confident of whether a difference exists or not.

Aren't Olympic and World records set under the most adverse pressure conditions possible Bulldogger? Was there any more pressure than Larry Bird telling Xavier Daniels that he was going to get the ball out of bounds, where he was going to shoot, and how much time there was going to be on the clock when he did? And I'm sure you know it's also a matter of practice along with heart and respiration rates too.
Not apples to oranges. You would have to test the general population and see it performaning under pressure is a similiar human trait or if that trait in itself is what allows elite athetes to perform in situation where the general population can not? Think about a gun fight in the old west. Lousy shot but cool under pressure may win. Does this test the human ability to shoot a gun? NO. You would be testing two separate things. If you wanted to test how good of a "shot" both were then you have to eliminate as much as possible environmental factors. In pyschometrics, adverse testing conditions show a high correlation between mesured results. In many testing situtation, details are kept as closely as possible to show that you are measuring exactly what you intend to measure. In Shawn's example notice how quickly he was not able to replicate his first observations when he changed the testing conditions, his state of fatigue. Activities like this are fun. However when your results match what you expect be very cautious. Expect to pass in one case and expect to fail in the other, raise the red flag. You may be introducing an expectation effect and need to redesign your experimental paradigm. It is what I would do. If you can not replicate the experiment, the results are meaningless.

Great! So the power of suggestion is so strong that I managed to perceive that cheapo cables were just as good as Transparents. Glad to know that. Wow, I didn't know sighted tests were so useless! :)

Yes, many people think that placebo is where something is "just in your mind." Expectation is HUGE, HUGE. It's not that the placebo does not change the measured results in an experiment. Boy does it! Look at male pattern baldness. Give some people Rogaine, and others just a plain water. The group getting the plain water will regrow hair too! You can't say it's their imagination. They have new hair on their heads:). The difference is that the group recieving the experimental variable should show a larger change to show that it beat the null hypothesis.

I ran a Blind Test not DBT a while back 1 - 2 years ago and posted the results here (AVS). There were two members that thought they could hear the difference between cables. My Denon 5900 universal player has two outputs for 2 ch. So I could easily switch back and forth on my pre pro. The key member choose the specific piece of music and how long it would play. Let's just say there were no "perfect scores" in the two passes. The key member scored worse of all three and had the best seat in the house.

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=665518

the results are on page 3 in an attachment

I got into blind testing in the mid to late 90's. I don't know if anyone else here hung around the old rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.high-end newsgroups, but there were vehement battles between the "subjectivists" and the "objectivists." The subjectivists of course being those people who "trusted their ears" over measurements and tests, vs the objectivists who insisted audible differences would be measurable, that lots of high-end claims were baloney on engineering grounds, and emphasized the issues of DBTs etc.

I had a foot in both camps in that I had certainly "subjectivist" experiences in audio in terms of hearing differences between amplifiers, CD players/DACs and sometimes cables. Yet I've always had a strong rational side and an interest in science that doesn't let my more subjective side run away with the farm. I really was interested in whether I was hearing "real" differences or not.

I started with some blind, and double-blind, tests of some CD players and DACs (e.g. comparing my Meridian CD player against a cheaper Sony CD player and a Mietner DAC). I used a voltmeter to level match and performed tests several different times.
In that case, not only could I hear differences between the DACs, I could consistently identify the Meridian CD player's sound, even from another room!

I also did some single-blind comparisons of speakers which was always fascinating. It was quite amazing how much a pair of Spendor BC1 dynamic speakers could sound like a pair of Quad ESL 63 electrostatics, when you didn't know which was playing.

I also did some comparisons of boutique AC cables. I was sent a range of water-hose-thick AC cables, the product of one of the most lauded makers of AC cables and power conditioners in the audiophile world (who shall remain nameless at this point). There were plenty of raves about how those AC cables changed the sound of systems. I had three versions, from the least expensive to the most (over $600 for a 3 ft cable, as I remember). I actually was sure, subjectively, the most expensive cable had changed the sound of my system. The sound seemed darker, richer. Subjectively this was very convincing. Yet, as the week wore on I wasn't so sure it was the case anymore. Unless I was really thinking about it, my system seemed to sound the same as I'd remembered it before inserting the pricey power cord.

I really wanted to see what the real deal was, so it was on to blind-testing again. In two different sessions I had friends help me do a shoot out between the expensive cable and a standard, $15 military-grade AC cable. Can you guess? Once I didn't know what I was listening to, I couldn't tell them apart at all. Nothing more than pure chance. And , as is a typical phenomenon laid bare by blind testing, I was marking the sound as "different" even when the power cables had not really been switched.

Ah...the power of sighted testing and listener bias/expectations. By-bye expensive AC cables...with the attendant saving of my cash and peace of mind.

Then as I got more into home theater there was the issue of video cabling, with many similar claims being made for analogue video cables by most manufacturers. "Clearer picture" "better black levels" "less noise in the image" "more vibrant colors" "more dimensional, smoother image" etc. And plenty of reviews extolling the differences of
video cables. (BTW, I've noted that articles and reviews devoted to video cables are not nearly so common as they were, say, 9 to 4 years ago. I think this has to do with cables and AV equipment going digital).

I borrowed an expensive Nordost S-Video cable to test. I actually was sure it made a difference to the picture, at least subjectively. But...later...I wanted to do more testing. So I borrowed 4 different sets of component cables, from standard-pro-grade Canare, to moderate priced AV cables, to mid-priced, to mega-priced. If the claims of visible differences from manufacturers and reviewers were sound, I should have been able to see some level of difference between the cables, and I couldn't. I then had some fun doing an on-line AVS cable shoot-out, using photos of each cable in action.

The photos were freeze-framed images from DVDs, with full shots and zoomed in close ups. I put a selection of the photos up on an image web site, and did not identify the cables used, then did a poll - asking people to say whether they saw a difference, to choose which cable looked sharpest, clearest, best and whatever.

IF the claims made on behalf of cables were true, that the more expensive cable would produce any visible change in color, sharpness, black level etc, then any real changes I should think would also show up in carefully produced photos of each cable in action, comparing the same DVD frames.

Well, the poll showed once again: no consensus. It was all over the map, just as one would expect if there were no real differences, with some folks insisting the cheapest cables were clearly the superior cables (before knowing which cable was which) and others claiming the reverse.

Not a few people thanked me for saving them some money after they experienced the poll and results. ;)

The photos are still up on my image web site, here:

http://www.pbase.com/chunkofunk/video_cable_comparison_screen_shots

I'm not closed off to the idea cables might make sonic or visible differences.
And I'm definitely not closed to the idea that various implementations of digital DACs would produce sonic differences. And I happen to be the happy owner of Conrad Johnson mono-blocks and tend to love tube amps.
But...I personally won't go around making proclamations about the sonic differences I hear concerning controversial areas (e.g. cables) as if my subjective impression was the arbiter of sonic reality. I would much prefer to have some solid experimental or solid engineering explanations in support of sonic differences, before I did so.

I don't mind occasionally spending my own money on the placebo effect, but I would be uncomfortable advising others to buy things like cables and whatnot
based merely on sighted testing.

Thanks Rich for taking the time to post this. Great insight.

I tried a double blind test with some newer projectors, but unfortunately I was unable to see any differences since my eyes were closed.


Joey

I don't know the average age of a/v enthusiasts, but I would assume that most are passed the point of optimal hearing (10 years old):rolleyes:. and most of the inviduals that claim to hear the big differences and can afford a $2000.00 cable, probably can't hear there wife calling them for dinner one room over. So the differences they hear are probably a result of their loss of hearing rather than their enhanced sense of it.:eek:

There is an age where you hearing starts deteriating and I think it is very young. So I will be trying some A/B cables tests with my son who is 4 and lets see if he can clearly define one cable over another. Maybe I can train my son to get that million dollars.:D

Joey

So the differences they hear are probably a result of their loss of hearing rather than their enhanced sense of it.:eek:Illogical since their hearing, whatever it is, is a constant and, therefore, cannot account for any perceived differences. Of course, if the differences are real, compromised hearing might not let them perceive those differences.

Illogical since their hearing, whatever it is, is a constant and, therefore, cannot account for any perceived differences. Of course, if the differences are real, compromised hearing might not let them perceive those differences.

True.

Illogical since their hearing, whatever it is, is a constant and, therefore, cannot account for any perceived differences. Of course, if the differences are real, compromised hearing might not let them perceive those differences.

My comments were meant to be facetious, but somewhat accurate as I was refering to
an intermittent hearing loss which would account for hearing or not hearing at certain times. Since your correcting how is may take on age of hearing loss and hearing potential. 7-11 Stores are using a devise that emits a sound that is disturbing to teenagers, but does not effect adults (as they can not hear it). It is used to combat vagrancy.

I've done speaker cable, audio interconnects, video interconnect and amplifier DBTs as well as a few ABX cable tests. I've also DBT'd various amplifiers (pro vs. consumer, etc.). The most recent testing I've done was about 2 years ago (since I am happy with my current audio system until I change houses). All of these tests were with a group of audio enthusiasts and the moajority were on a nice consumer based system (Classe, Ariel, Theta, Lexicon, etc.).

What gear?
Audio Interconnect test: 1 Nordost cable (Blue Heaven IIRC), Audioquest Copperhead and Sky, 1 Monster (mid tier version, forget exact model), and 1 ultra-cheap box cable (red/white, thin conductor, etc.)
Video Interconnect test: Monster, Canare (RG-59), Belden (RG-6), Radio Shack gold, Audioquest (older mid-tier version), cheap Radio Shack with loose connections, Radio Shack gold
Speaker Cable: Harmonic Tech (shotgunned pro-9s), 12 gauge zip cord, Audioquest (older 14 gauge model) - distance to speakers was ~12 feet
Amps: Crown Studio Reference 1 (780W/ch), Parasound 2250 (250W/ch), Rotel RB-1080 (200W/ch), Denon receiver (130W/ch), Classe (older 250W model)

Results? - When each cable test started, we had a sighted comparison and everyone was quite positive that large differences existed. However, during the actual test, only 3 differences were discovered (10/12 trials identified correctly). The first was when we tried to send high def RGBHV signals over a video cable with very thin conductors. The 2nd was when we used a cheap video interconnect with poor shielding for cable signals where multi-Ghz of bandwidth is required (better shielding and thicker conductors made a difference in the image quality). The 3rd was when we tried to use a poorly shielded analog interconnect with a pro audio mixing board. A lot of noise and crosstalk was picked up. This was removed once we plugged in any cable with a decent shield (Radio Shack Gold or above).
The amp testing was also interesting. The tricky part was level matching each amplifier for each test trial. We had a sighted comparison where each test subject made their claim (amp a is clearly better than b, etc.). We then had the subject pick out the 'better' amp over a number of trials. At lower volume levels (85dB-SPL peak) no one could tell the amps apart from each other (despite their sighted claims). At higher volume levels, ("reference level") the Denon receiver could be differentiated from the others (i.e. it didn't keep up). We then hooked up a 4 subwoofers + the speakers (for a total 2 ohm load) and tried the various amps again. This was our 'mega speaker' simulation. The Crown and Parasound amps were the only 2 to not shut down and the Crown was reliably picked out over a number of trials (as the preferred option).

These were the main tests (all day type testing) that I've participated in. I've also ABX'd various tweaks in various systems and have kept some of them. For example, post office air-packaging materials under my CD/DVD player kept it from skipping during playback (pretty obvious difference when the audio doesn't drop out).

My comments were meant to be facetious, ...Missed that.

but somewhat accurate as I was refering to
an intermittent hearing loss which would account for hearing or not hearing at certain times. Not as common as HF loss with presbycusis.

Since your correcting how is may take on age of hearing loss and hearing potential. ????

7-11 Stores are using a devise that emits a sound that is disturbing to teenagers, but does not effect adults (as they can not hear it). It is used to combat vagrancy.Based on assumed presbycusis.

Those interested in learning more about expectation effects could read a little on Hawthorne effect. Although the original Hawthorne effect had to do with the subjects changing their behaviour to help the experimenter, its ramifications have be further studied to provide better insight into expectation and experimenter effect.

Those interested in learning more about expectation effects could read a little on Hawthorne effect. Although the original Hawthorne effect had to do with the subjects changing their behaviour to help the experimenter, its ramifications have be further studied to provide better insight into expectation and experimenter effect.

I don't think the subjects changed behavior to "help." It's just a natural human occurance that when we are aware that we are being observed, human behavior changes. Even the perception that we are being observed even when in fact we are not will cause a change. One problem with running "test' solo is that you are aware that a change has been made. True double blind testing really could involve no actual changes to the experimental varible.

I've done speaker cable, audio interconnects, video interconnect and amplifier DBTs as well as a few ABX cable tests. I've also DBT'd various amplifiers (pro vs. consumer, etc.). The most recent testing I've done was about 2 years ago (since I am happy with my current audio system until I change houses). All of these tests were with a group of audio enthusiasts and the moajority were on a nice consumer based system (Classe, Ariel, Theta, Lexicon, etc.).

What gear?
Audio Interconnect test: 1 Nordost cable (Blue Heaven IIRC), Audioquest Copperhead and Sky, 1 Monster (mid tier version, forget exact model), and 1 ultra-cheap box cable (red/white, thin conductor, etc.)
Video Interconnect test: Monster, Canare (RG-59), Belden (RG-6), Radio Shack gold, Audioquest (older mid-tier version), cheap Radio Shack with loose connections, Radio Shack gold
Speaker Cable: Harmonic Tech (shotgunned pro-9s), 12 gauge zip cord, Audioquest (older 14 gauge model) - distance to speakers was ~12 feet
Amps: Crown Studio Reference 1 (780W/ch), Parasound 2250 (250W/ch), Rotel RB-1080 (200W/ch), Denon receiver (130W/ch), Classe (older 250W model)

Results? - When each cable test started, we had a sighted comparison and everyone was quite positive that large differences existed. However, during the actual test, only 3 differences were discovered (10/12 trials identified correctly). The first was when we tried to send high def RGBHV signals over a video cable with very thin conductors. The 2nd was when we used a cheap video interconnect with poor shielding for cable signals where multi-Ghz of bandwidth is required (better shielding and thicker conductors made a difference in the image quality). The 3rd was when we tried to use a poorly shielded analog interconnect with a pro audio mixing board. A lot of noise and crosstalk was picked up. This was removed once we plugged in any cable with a decent shield (Radio Shack Gold or above).
The amp testing was also interesting. The tricky part was level matching each amplifier for each test trial. We had a sighted comparison where each test subject made their claim (amp a is clearly better than b, etc.). We then had the subject pick out the 'better' amp over a number of trials. At lower volume levels (85dB-SPL peak) no one could tell the amps apart from each other (despite their sighted claims). At higher volume levels, ("reference level") the Denon receiver could be differentiated from the others (i.e. it didn't keep up). We then hooked up a 4 subwoofers + the speakers (for a total 2 ohm load) and tried the various amps again. This was our 'mega speaker' simulation. The Crown and Parasound amps were the only 2 to not shut down and the Crown was reliably picked out over a number of trials (as the preferred option).

These were the main tests (all day type testing) that I've participated in. I've also ABX'd various tweaks in various systems and have kept some of them. For example, post office air-packaging materials under my CD/DVD player kept it from skipping during playback (pretty obvious difference when the audio doesn't drop out).

You'll get similiar results when you test almost anything in this manner. Try testing some favorite food items for example. You will find that many items if not most, or all that people voice a strong preference will not show much or any stastical difference when submitted to DBT. My only complaint with this sort of testing by those in the audio community is the lack of awareness of this. Audiophiles are singled out when the reality is that ALL of us make decisions on a DAILY basis that are the result of "expectation." I'm sure we all have a favorite brand of soft drink or soda for example. In a DBT, we may actually find that we prefer, Sam's Club to Welch's Grape;) or not even be able to tell any difference. With a sighted test most subjects will show strong brand perference. Even common things like asprin show expectation effects. For example people given Bayer asprin vs a generic will report greater head ache reduction when the experiment is sighted. Make the same test blind and the result are equal. Artifical coloring, for example, in food items is not only about making the food items appear more "attractive" but also to create the expectation that they will taste better. Many of our perceptions of reality are just that. They appear as absolute reality but if DBT results are accepted, much of what we believe about every day life is an illusion. Life is much like we "expect" it to be.

You'll get similiar results when you test almost anything in this manner. Try testing some favorite food items for example. You will find that many items if not most, or all that people voice a strong preference will not show much or any stastical difference when submitted to DBT. My only complaint with this sort of testing by those in the audio community is the lack of awareness of this. Audiophiles are singled out when the reality is that ALL of us make decisions on a DAILY basis that are the result of "expectation." I'm sure we all have a favorite brand of soft drink or soda for example. In a DBT, we may actually find that we prefer, Sam's Club to Welch's Grape;) or not even be able to tell any difference. With a sighted test most subjects will show strong brand perference. Even common things like asprin show expectation effects. For example people given Bayer asprin vs a generic will report greater head ache reduction when the experiment is sighted. Make the same test blind and the result are equal. Artifical coloring, for example, in food items is not only about making the food items appear more "attractive" but also to create the expectation that they will taste better. Many of our perceptions of reality are just that. They appear as absolute reality but if DBT results are accepted, much of what we believe about every day life is an illusion. Life is much like we "expect" it to be.

Very astute. Can we all say PLACEBO.

You'll get similiar results when you test almost anything in this manner. Try testing some favorite food items for example. You will find that many items if not most, or all that people voice a strong preference will not show much or any stastical difference when submitted to DBT. My only complaint with this sort of testing by those in the audio community is the lack of awareness of this. Audiophiles are singled out when the reality is that ALL of us make decisions on a DAILY basis that are the result of "expectation." I'm sure we all have a favorite brand of soft drink or soda for example. In a DBT, we may actually find that we prefer, Sam's Club to Welch's Grape;) or not even be able to tell any difference. With a sighted test most subjects will show strong brand perference. Even common things like asprin show expectation effects. For example people given Bayer asprin vs a generic will report greater head ache reduction when the experiment is sighted. Make the same test blind and the result are equal. Artifical coloring, for example, in food items is not only about making the food items appear more "attractive" but also to create the expectation that they will taste better. Many of our perceptions of reality are just that. They appear as absolute reality but if DBT results are accepted, much of what we believe about every day life is an illusion. Life is much like we "expect" it to be.

Very true.

I did a DBT amplifier test many years ago in San Francisco. The exact protocol escapes me, but the results do not. I was unable to reliably distinguish any difference between power amplifiers or cables.

Since then I have sunk my money into improving my speakers and my video for HT and I couldn't be happier with the results.

Ask and ye shall receive -

"Audibility of A CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback", by Brad Meyer and Dave Moran - JAES Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 Sept.

ABSTRACT ... the authors report on a series of DBT comparing the output of high resolution players [i.e. SACD or DVD-A] with the same signal passed through a 16-bit 44.1 kHz "bottleneck" ...

The purpose of the DBT was to validate claims that high resolution formats sound superior to CD standard 16-bit 44.1 kHz audio. So after a year of conducting the DBT with over -500- listening tests, guess what the probability of detecting the "inferior" 16-bit 44.1 kHz audio was? 49.2 percent, meaning that it was pure chance! And - their listening tests included professional recording engineers and audiophiles to boot!

What they did note was that the high resolution recordings consistently sounded better than regular CDs, but that it was not due to the high resolution format per se, but due to better mastering and less processing of the audio. So, if you could get the exact same program material on CD, it would sound the same.

ps - I wasn't involved in the test. JAES = Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Who Has Done a True DBT Audio Test?

This means that you used test gear to ensure level matching, etc.

If you've done this:

When?

What gear?

Who was present?

Testing protocol?

Results?

Done it often, comparing mp3s to source wavs, and remastered CD to previous versions. Gear is an M-Audio 2496 soundcard, Audio-Technica headphones, foobar2000 software player and its built in software ABX comparator. Levels were either unmatched or matched with replaygain. Protocol is at least 16 trials per test, number decided in advance. The foobar ABX comparator does the rest. Results were that I can almost always tell a remastered CD from another version, and can usually tell a low-bitrate mp3 from source, while mp3s beyond 192 kbps are 'transparent' to me.

If you want more soudnfile ABX results, you can peruse hydrogenaudio.org, where they are required before making any claims about sonic difference. You can also check iout a compilation of ABX gear results here

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

And you can use ABX to make yourself a 'reliable' listener, here

http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

If you have questions about obtaining or using an ABX Comparator (a hardware ABX switcher), you can look up Bob Lee of QSC who posts to AVSForum. His company used to make them.

Any more smart questions, esquire?

You would think that with the objectivists here hangin' around this forum always telling everyone that they must do true DBT tests that they would be running to post here in this thread and tell us of their true DBT tests!!!

Where are they?


They only say you 'must' do a DBT before you can claim the difference is real, when differences are predicted to be subtle. Of course, most of 'you guys' simply ignore the mass of data about the fallibility of human perception; you don't really think that a reality check is at all necessary before making a claim about audio reality. The difference between you and objectivists is that the latter don't automatically conclude that if they heard it, it's real. They know better than to do that.

Btw ,just curious, exactly how many testimonials from folks who really have done DBTs, will it take for you to yap down about it?

The reason I described the particular test format the way I did is because of audio tests I've heard conducted that were fairly strict ABX done in large groups. The test is restricted to listening to A then to B and then to X without swapping back and forth.

And where, pray tell, have you read of or seen such bizarre ABX test protocols?


I would be much more willing to trust the results from the test conducted the way you describe. Conducted individually, with free swapping between A and X until confident of whether a difference exists or not.


THAT IS WHAT AN ABX TEST IS.

You have constant, at-whim access to A and B and X. Switching between them should be instantaneous and playback should be time-synched, or else set to play back from a point of the listener's choosing. A and B are two ostensibly different sources. You can listen to either of them as long as you like. You can also listen to X as long as you like. The only thing for sure is that X is either A or B. At some point you must decide whether X is A or B. Repeat 16 or more times, during which the software or hardware or operator will assign X randomly to A or B. That's a good ABX.

Yes, many people think that placebo is where something is "just in your mind." Expectation is HUGE, HUGE. It's not that the placebo does not change the measured results in an experiment. Boy does it! Look at male pattern baldness. Give some people Rogaine, and others just a plain water. The group getting the plain water will regrow hair too! You can't say it's their imagination. They have new hair on their heads:). The difference is that the group recieving the experimental variable should show a larger change to show that it beat the null hypothesis.


And again, a physiological effect on the body arising from BELIEF does not mean that the objects under test actually are different. The common error of reasoning in audio, as with copper bracelets for arthritis is, 'I was doing this thing, then I did a different thing, then I felt/observed this effect on my body, therefore the new thing must be different from the old thing'. Placebo effects show us that the two 'things' need not really be objectively different at all, to induce a physiological effect -- the BELIEF in difference is enough -- thus it's wrong to conclude that the two things are different.

Thanks Shawn.

Just make sure your meter can do 1% of say a .5V or 1V test tone on the speaker terminal:D

...And - their listening tests included professional recording engineers and audiophiles to boot!
.

Yep, this showed the exact same thing that conductors, musicians or ordinary folks performed about the same level:

Gould, Glenn, "The Grass is Always Greener in the Outtakes," High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

It tested if these people could differentiate between the music discarded and the retakes:D They didn't do well.

...The amp testing was also interesting. The tricky part was level matching each amplifier for each test trial. We had a sighted comparison where each test subject made their claim (amp a is clearly better than b, etc.). We then had the subject pick out the 'better' amp over a number of trials. At lower volume levels (85dB-SPL peak) no one could tell the amps apart from each other (despite their sighted claims). At higher volume levels, ("reference level") the Denon receiver could be differentiated from the others (i.e. it didn't keep up). We then hooked up a 4 subwoofers + the speakers (for a total 2 ohm load) and tried the various amps again. This was our 'mega speaker' simulation. The Crown and Parasound amps were the only 2 to not shut down and the Crown was reliably picked out over a number of trials (as the preferred option).

.


When you drive amps beyond their design limits, what you found is expected.:D

THAT IS WHAT AN ABX TEST IS.

You have constant, at-whim access to A and B and X. Switching between them should be instantaneous and playback should be time-synched, or else set to play back from a point of the listener's choosing. A and B are two ostensibly different sources. You can listen to either of them as long as you like. You can also listen to X as long as you like. The only thing for sure is that X is either A or B. At some point you must decide whether X is A or B. Repeat 16 or more times, during which the software or hardware or operator will assign X randomly to A or B. That's a good ABX.
This is NOT double blind testing. In true double blind, you would not even be sure if ANY change had been made. You could listen to the same source at exactly the same volume and be asked to tell any difference in true DBT.

[QUOTE=krabapple;12196491 -- the BELIEF in difference is enough -- thus it's wrong to conclude that the two things are different.[/QUOTE]

No, that's not exactly a good explanation of placebo. Difference can be real and can be greater than the null hypothosis. To beat the null, the result must show a DIFFERENCE greater than what you would expect from random chance. For example, with Rogaine, hair regrowth treatment, 11% of the people receiving placebo show new hair growth. However those people actually recieving Rogaine show a 33% increase. Both expected change but the group receiving the actual experimental variable showed a change greater than the control variable, in this case a placebo. So, expecting change and getting it can be an "expectation effect." However when the results actually show a great change than the control group, you have beat the null hypothosis. In a DBT, neither the experimenter or the control group recieving the placebo or the experimental group actually recieving the experimental varible know who is getting what at the time of the experiment.

This is NOT double blind testing. In true double blind, you would not even be sure if ANY change had been made. You could listen to the same source at exactly the same volume and be asked to tell any difference in true DBT.


An ABX is double blind as long as neither the operator nor the subject know what 'X' is at any time. When the operator IS the subject, of course -- when software or an ABX comparator box is used, and the randomizing and switching is done automatically -- this condition holds 'automatically'. And you can indeed be presented the same 'A' and 'B' and 'X' twice in a row, with no change. So you can't sure that ANY change has been made from trial to trial. What you can't do is have A and B be the same source in the same trial. Because then 'identifying' X would be pointless -- your answer would of course be correct no matter what it was.

No, that's not exactly a good explanation of placebo. Difference can be real and can be greater than the null hypothosis. To beat the null, the result must show a DIFFERENCE greater than what you would expect from random chance. For example, with Rogaine, hair regrowth treatment, 11% of the people receiving placebo show new hair growth. However those people actually recieving Rogaine show a 33% increase. Both expected change but the group receiving the actual experimental variable showed a change greater than the control variable, in this case a placebo. So, expecting change and getting it can be an "expectation effect." However when the results actually show a great change than the control group, you have beat the null hypothosis. In a DBT, neither the experimenter or the control group recieving the placebo or the experimental group actually recieving the experimental varible know who is getting what at the time of the experiment.


Your presumption is amusing. I don't think you understood what I wrote. Who or what are you, exactly?

Your presumption is amusing. I don't think you understood what I wrote. Who or what are you, exactly?

Only if you don't know much about experimental testing and paradigms would you find what I wrote amusing. It's not complicated. That's basic stuff. Why ask a person's who's persumptions are amusing who are what they are? ABX looked flawed certainly with a single subject. I think that if the ABX paradigm were used with an experimenter conducting the trails and with enough trails you could get something meaningful. This article is a lot more elegant than my ramblings, http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index2.html

An ABX is double blind as long as neither the operator nor the subject know what 'X' is at any time. When the operator IS the subject, of course -- when software or an ABX comparator box is used, and the randomizing and switching is done automatically -- this condition holds 'automatically'. And you can indeed be presented the same 'A' and 'B' and 'X' twice in a row, with no change. So you can't sure that ANY change has been made from trial to trial. What you can't do is have A and B be the same source in the same trial. Because then 'identifying' X would be pointless -- your answer would of course be correct no matter what it was.

Not traditional DBT. Traditional DBT consist of a control group, experimental group, experimenter and either a single of multiple experimental variables. If the first three are all of the experimenter you don't have a control group to compare. What is your method to you reduce expectation effects? No way to scrutinize what you are doing? Further still, with one person controlling the time interverval, number of intervals and also picking the the experimental variable, you are tripling up on the possible expecation effects. For example, what happens if you the experimenter picks two components that he has already decided sound identical and then knows they are the subject of the ABX? What is his expectation then;)? Traditional DBT would not allow the experimenter to both pick the varible then be all three groups! What happens if time of day effects the results and you let a subject of the experiment pick the time? How can you then replicate that if each time the subject of the experiment gets to determine the testing conditions? I saw a recent experiment where human strength and flexibility all varied according to time of day. All of these are reasons traditional DBT ensures all things are independent. Time intervals, frequency of intervals, and experimental varibles should be pick by the experimenter with the subject of the experiment being BLIND as to even what the components are being tested. The time of day and location or any factors should not be under the control of the same person if that person is participating in the experiment. That's true DBT. Further some method should be employed so that no one is aware of the order of the submission of the experimental variable or wheter the variable was even submitted at all. If I were designing the paradigm the subject might not even be aware that I was testing his ability to discriminate aural differences. For example, I might tell him that I was testing his ability to determine the distance of pin prick in his back and right after ask him to identify difference between the electronics. When he left, he'd be convinced that I was testing his nervous system and not his hearing or at least be confused at to which. I'd have the subject so, "blind" at to not even be sure of the nature of the test:). That's a lot more complicated to do than using ABX however.
__________________

Only if you don't know much about experimental testing and paradigms would you find what I wrote amusing. It's not complicated. That's basic stuff. Why ask a person's who's persumptions are amusing who are what they are? ABX looked flawed certainly with a single subject. I think that if the ABX paradigm were used with an experimenter conducting the trails and with enough trails you could get something meaningful. This article is a lot more elegant than my ramblings, http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index2.html


I don't think you understand ABX, and you clearly aren't familiar with its history. It can be, and has been, implemented in both software (e.g., WinABX (http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/); foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/)'s ABX comparator; PCABX (http://www.pcabx.com/)) and hardware (QSC's ABX Comparator (http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_qsc.htm); Project ABX (http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm) ). Both work with subject as 'experimenter'. Or if you prefer, think of the software/hardware as the 'experimenter'.


Yes, of course, you need to do sufficient trails [sic] to enable robust statistical analysis. For a single subject who ALREADY claims to hear an 'obvious' difference between the two thigns under test, --a very common , often dubious claim in audiophile -land -- 20 trials and a p-value of 0.05 (i.e., a 95% confidence level, amounting to 15 or more correct out of 20 tries) is probably sufficient to determine whether THAT subject could really hear a difference. For a more rigorous discrimination test, where e.g., a naive subject, and where the difference is predicted to be subtle at best, both training to hear differences and many more trials would be indicated, as would a more stringent p-value (0.01). A good precis on ABX can be found at hydrogenaudio.org (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295) -- a forum whose TOS require blind testing to back up claims of audible difference.

I don't think you understand ABX, and you clearly aren't familiar with its history.

I've seen it quite a few times. Guess I never have taken it that seriously. All experimental paradigms have their draw backs. The more sophisticated your experience conducting experiments is the more likely you are be able to see the weakness of each paradigm. Part of really being able to publish new work is to be able to analysis the weaknesses of prior work. The work that I have done involved more complex and sometimes multiple experimental varibles. One guy picking all the variables and doing the test on himself? No way.

What do you offer as a viable alternative, Bulldogger, to sighted, no level matching, listening evaluations that can span hours if not weeks and months?

What do you offer as a viable alternative, Bulldogger, to sighted, no level matching, listening evaluations that can span hours if not weeks and months?

Well if you put it that way:). I guess it is a more useful than sighted listening.

When you drive amps beyond their design limits, what you found is expectedYes, strange how the results followed what science predicted... :-)

I've seen it quite a few times. Guess I never have taken it that seriously.

There is more than one valid way to implement DBT. E.g.,in sensory testing we have ABC(HR), ABX, ABXY....the implementations vary with what question is being asked. Obviously a randomized DBT of multiple subjects in a drug trial is not quite the same protocol as an audio DBT where we are testing one person's claim of audible difference. They all share randomization and 'double blindness' however. ABX happens to be particularly suited to testing for perception of audible difference -- where we seek a yes/no answer rather than a quality rating. And no, the subject doesn't HAVE to know what two things are being compared, but neither is it required for them NOT TO. That's context dependent too. When the subject already claims to know the diff between two particular things, you compare those two things. When the question is more abstract, you needn't necessarily tell the subject what is being compared. You can just ask them to tell (in the case of ABX) whether X =A or X=B. (And btw, if A and B don't sound different to them, then they are consciously GUESSING, which may invalidate the test...it's kind of pointless to continue to test someone who sincerely claims NOT to hear differences during the test itself)

Have you read any of the links I posted about ABX? If you want to know more you could ask at www.hydrogenaudio.org. In addition to the HA page I already linked to, they also have a wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX) page about ABX.

No, I did not read any more of the links. Thanks for them. It's interesting stuff. I once made my living doing such test and was excited to do published work. Now this is just a hobby for me. Trust me, I'm very aware of what kind of results you get with DBT. Now, I make my living about as far away from Exp. psychology as one could imagine. But then, if I were in that field, I would not be able to afford all of this nice sounding stuff:D. Why don't some of you make some recommendations as to what your experience has taught you are sound buying decisions based upon ABX. Electronics, speakers? Just curious. Pick any budget that you like and let me know what you think.

This is NOT double blind testing. In true double blind, you would not even be sure if ANY change had been made. That is the purpose of X, which is randomly chosesn as either A or B. ABX is indeed double-blind testing.

No, I did not read any more of the links. Thanks for them. It's interesting stuff. I once made my living doing such test and was excited to do published work. Now this is just a hobby for me. Trust me, I'm very aware of what kind of results you get with DBT. Now, I make my living about as far away from Exp. psychology as one could imagine. But then, if I were in that field, I would not be able to afford all of this nice sounding stuff:D. Why don't some of you make some recommendations as to what your experience has taught you are sound buying decisions based upon ABX. Electronics, speakers? Just curious. Pick any budget that you like and let me know what you think.

These mostly aren't based on personal ABX. They're based on good research done by others such as Floyd Toole.

Spend the bulk of your budget on speakers and room treatment. Buy speakers with good (even) on- and off-axis response, in low-resonance enclosures. Experiment with speaker and listener placement. Your placement options will multiply if you employ subwoofers. Consider digital bass management, levels, distance correction and room correction, as well as multichannel sources and playback. Buy an amp/receiver that can drive your speakers to your preferred levels without clipping.

Frankly, everything else in the signal chain that's controllable by the user, pales in significance to the sonic effects of what I've listed above.

These mostly aren't based on personal ABX. They're based on good research done by others such as Floyd Toole.

Spend the bulk of your budget on speakers and room treatment. Buy speakers with good (even) on- and off-axis response, in low-resonance enclosures. Experiment with speaker and listener placement. Your placement options will multiply if you employ subwoofers. Consider digital bass management, levels, distance correction and room correction, as well as multichannel sources and playback. Buy an amp/receiver that can drive your speakers to your preferred levels without clipping.

Frankly, everything else in the signal chain that's controllable by the user, pales in significance to the sonic effects of what I've listed above.

Do you own audio and video equipment? What did YOU buy? Sure I know about room treatments, yadaydayda. I have a thread on diffusers here in this section of the forum. Guys laud ABX so I want to see if what you would buy matches what I think sounds great. I mean walk the walk.

Do you own audio and video equipment?

Of course. Have you read any of Floyd Toole's work? Do you have a clue why I've made the recommendations I made?

What did YOU buy? Sure I know about room treatments, yadaydayda. I have a thread on diffusers here in this section of the forum. Guys laud ABX so I want to see if what you would buy matches what I think sounds great. I mean walk the walk.

That's not walking the walk. That's a pissing contest. I certainly don't give a flying rat's rear about what you think about what I own. My system is a conglomerate of stuff bought over the course of a decade or so; I certainly don't claim it adheres to all the advice given above -- and that's because I've learned a lot over those years. Indeed, my next purchase is likely to be new loudspeakers, based on the advice I give above. I already use room treatment, a subwoofer, digital room correction, and multichannel playback -- that pretty much covers what I wrote, right?

So, care to challenge any of that advice on its merits, or are you just looking to play a 'gotcha' game that you've already lost?

And btw, have you seen the results of Mike Lavigne's blind cable comparison?

Well, whatever you have krabapple, make sure to polish your AC plugs. That way if anyone says your system sucks, you can always say, but you've never heard it polished plugs.

Of course. Have you read any of Floyd Toole's work? Do you have a clue why I've made the recommendations I made?



That's not walking the walk. That's a pissing contest. I certainly don't give a flying rat's rear about what you think about what I own.
And btw, have you seen the results of Mike Lavigne's blind cable comparison?

Yes, I have seen Floyd Toole's work and read a lot of other's positions on the subject as well. Yes I know why you asked about if I was familiar with Floyd's position. I want to know YOURS as you are not Floyd Toole and I have read already a lot of what Floyd says. If it's your position that you use DBT to buy audio gear then show how you have used that method to buy stuff yourself:). . My position is that you just listen to the gear and buy what you think sounds best;). That's what I do. I think most who advocate DBT don't actually use it themselves:p. Beside I first ask for recommendations of gear based upon your experience using DBT. You don't have to state what you actually own if that bothers you. That's why I phrased it that way FIRST. Ok, I got 10K to spend, what would you buy based upon DBT? You can pick the price point and make a recommendation. Gotta confess, it it's not high-end gear, I'll likley have no opinion;). Ask me the same question about my method and I'll gladly recommend a pre-amp or speakers or an amplifier that I like. I think Mcintosh's new C2300 pre-amp has outstanding measurements and sounds great!! How's that? That's all I am asking that you do. If you ridicule my "sighted" method, I'd like to see the results of yours. That is not a pissing contest. It is just backing up your position. . I have learned quite a lot about acoustical treatments. I'll be glad to show you some pictures of my room with large DIY bass traps , DIY absorption panels, and diffusers. I have experimented with parametric eq and have several measurements of my room. I have a chart with records of my measurements at each mike position that I keep in my file cabinet. How about you? Is your room treated? Pics?

Well, whatever you have krabapple, make sure to polish your AC plugs. That way if anyone says your system sucks, you can always say, but you've never heard it polished plugs.

Well we know that all he needs is a 25.00 CD player as they sound identical to a 5 thousand dollar one. Right? How about you? What do you recommend? Can I pick up some amps at Radio Shack that will match the ones I am using now? Do all amps sound the same? All CD players? Help me out. I am just a dumb audiophile who doesn't know anything:). Show me the light. or rather the dark, blind test results.

Well, whatever you have krabapple, make sure to polish your AC plugs. That way if anyone says your system sucks, you can always say, but you've never heard it polished plugs.

Well we know that all he needs is a 25.00 CD player as they sound identical to a 5 thousand dollar one. Right? How about you? What do you recommend? Can I pick up some amps at Radio Shack that will match the ones I am using now? Do all amps sound the same? All CD players? Help me out.Show me the light. or rather the dark, blind test results:).

You know a subjectivist is floundering when he resorts to absurd overstatement of the objectivist position. That, and making demands for equipment lists and pics. It's never pretty to see.

Yes, I have seen Floyd Toole's work and read a lot of other's positions on the subject as well. Yes I know why you asked about if I was familiar with Floyd's position. I want to know YOURS as you are not Floyd Toole and I have read already a lot of what Floyd says. If it's your position that you use DBT to buy audio gear then show how you have used that method to buy stuff yourself:).


My position is not that I use DBT to make purchases. My position is that many claims made about comparative sonic attributes of gear and formats, are unreliable without DBT evidence or evidence from measurements.

My position is that you just listen to the gear and buy what you think sounds best;). That's what I do.


And then what claims do you make about the sound of your gear? That it sounds better than X? Bzzzt. That's where audiophiles make fools of themselves, by ignoring the existence of psychological biasing factors....something science has long recognized and accounted for.

The difference between you and me, then, is that while neither of us uses DBT directly to buy gear (I'd be happy to, though if the option were offered to me), I don't make unsubstantiated claims about the sound of my gear.


Ok, I got 10K to spend, what would you buy based upon DBT?

Based on DBT? Well, I guess you'd want to buy an ABX comparator first. They used to go for $600, so after that you have PLENTY to spend on stuff that you've proven to yourself , sounds different.

Me, I'd spend a bunch on speakers that adhere to the qualities of 'good sounding speakers' elucidated by the CRC/Harman work done by Toole and Olive-- which used DBTs in its research. IIRC, Mirage, JBL, and a few other companies (usually Canada-based) sell speakers that do that. And I'd spend another bunch on either self-made or commercially-made room treatments, like Ethan Winer's Realtraps, or the Rives Audio stuff. In fact, I might spend a few thou and have Rives or Terry Montlick do a full acoustic work-up of my space. Or invest in great measuring gear and software myself.

The remaining piddly amount would be spent on commodity gear, like AVRs, digital front ends, and cables. There, it's mainly down to what features they offer (including how loud they can play without distortion), what formats they play, what connectors they have, respectively.


You can pick the price point and make a recommendation. Gotta confess, it it's not high-end gear, I'll likley have no opinion;).

Gotta confess, I honestly don't care what your recommendations are, and your sighted evaluations are worthless to me. Come up with some new tricks, doggie, if you want me to keep throwing you treats.

Well we know that all he needs is a 25.00 CD player as they sound identical to a 5 thousand dollar one. Right?

You know what must scare the piss out of you, doggie? That sometimes that might be true.

I recommend the Oppo line, myself. I think their top price is a few hundred bucks, and they play just about anything you can throw at them on disc.


How about you? What do you recommend? Can I pick up some amps at Radio Shack that will match the ones I am using now? Do all amps sound the same?

When they're level-matched and not driven to distortion, chances are they do. You got evidence that says otherwise? (Hint: your sighted testimony doesn't count)



All CD players? Help me out. I am just a dumb audiophile who doesn't know anything:). Show me the light. or rather the dark, blind test results.

No one says 'all X sound the same" without qualification, you dumb audiophile.

You know a subjectivist is floundering when he resorts to absurd overstatement of the objectivist position. That, and making demands for equipment lists and pics. It's never pretty to see.
Must be what happens when a psychologist has a psychological breakdown resulting in audiophile-rage.

What, is Michael Fremer in the house?

No one says 'all X sound the same" without qualification, you dumb audiophile.

Exactly what I thought. You can't back up your position with examples and have to just resort to name calling:D. Admit it. YOU brought up room treatments. That was a farce as you can't back that up either. I have seen many objectionist say that all CD players sound the same. Remember the "perfect sound forever." I mean how can perfect sound different?:D Radio Shack just as good too? OoooooK.

You know a subjectivist is floundering when he resorts to absurd overstatement of the objectivist position. That, and making demands for equipment lists and pics. It's never pretty to see.

What's the big deal about backing up your position? If for example you say your car is just as fast as mine. Can't I ask what kind of car it is? Many objectionist have said that all CD players sound the same.

You know what must scare the piss out of you, doggie? That sometimes that might be true.
.

Not at all. I know from my work that the real fool here maybe you. Unless you can say that all of the food products you buy are generics, you are the one who is being made a fool of and may not even know it;). You could save yourself much much more than audiophiles spend on cables by stopping being suckered into buying brand name food products. Those products do not beat generic in DBT. Bet you got a Sh11 load of them at home right now:D?

My position is not that I use DBT to make purchases. .

Then let's just cut the crap and say that you do the same thing as audiophiles and make purchases based upon sighted listening. Futher, not one of you on this thread is making product decisions with prerhaps exception of cables based upon ABX or DBT.

not one of you on this thread is making product decisions with prerhaps exception of cables based upon ABX or DBT.

Well some smart people do the tests (you can be smart without it too but....), IMO if you are not doing these test you dont really know the truth.

Hey, its your money and there are worse things to blow it on.

I have DBTed 2K receivers vs $200 receivers using separate amps, you dont want to know the truth of that one ;) and not that you care but the same can be said about 10K vs 5K or 2K sometimes.

Not all are the same but the some people do waste a ton off money on products that truely dont improve anything but dont let that stop you. Room treatments for one will improve a system 10 fold before equipment does (like you posted!)

Please dont ever do a DBT either I wouldnt want you to ruin your hobby!! ;)

If you ridicule my "sighted" method, I'd like to see the results of yours. That is not a pissing contest. It is just backing up your position.


You dont believe that the "placebo" effect is very strong? There are hundreds of case studies out there are you just ignoring?

"Sighted" method is a seriously flawed method, if you put a 10K option and a 5K option in front of the customer and he knows the price tag, 9 out of 10 times he will decide the 10K option sounded better. Not that he would buy it but his decision is tainted once he knew the price tags.


I love your tag line.....Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.词典

Its really ironic :D

Well some smart people do the tests (you can be smart without it too but....), IMO if you are not doing these test you dont really know the truth.

Hey, its your money and there are worse things to blow it on.

I have DBTed 2K receivers vs $200 receivers using separate amps, you dont want to know the truth of that one ;)

Not all are the same but the some people do waste a ton off money on products that truely dont improve anything but dont let that stop you.

Please dont ever do a DBT either I wouldnt want you to ruin your hobby!! ;)
I have performed many DBT. I know the results. I also know that most of those on the high horses making fun of audiophile buy a ton of other stuff that is just as much of a farce. Are audiophiles "being had?" Of course but so is everyone every day of the week at the supermarket and in every facet of life in which they make purchasing decisions based upon subjective measures. Our memory is poor and our senses are poor too. Ever wonder why everything taste like chicken? :D

Are audiophiles "being had?" Of course but so is everyone every day of the week at the supermarket and in every facet of life in which they make purchasing decisions based upon subjective measures. Our memory is poor and our senses are poor too. Ever wonder why everything taste like chicken?

:D so true!

You dont believe that the "placebo" effect is very strong? There are hundreds of case studies out there are you just ignoring?

"Sighted" method is a seriously flawed method, if you put a 10K option and a 5K option in front of the customer and he knows the price tag, 9 out of 10 times he will decide the 10K option sounded better. Not that he would buy it but his decision is tainted once he knew the price tags.


I love your tag line.....Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.词典

Its really ironic :D
Go back in the thread and read my post on placebo effect. You must have not read it to think that I don't understand it. Sure someone will pick the 10k stuff as sounding better. They will also pick a more attractive person as being smarter than a less attractive person, a more expensive car as being superior to a less expensive car, a person with glasses as being smarter than a person without, all based upon EXPECTATION or when that expectation takes the form of an experiment, placebo. As for my sig., oh it's very appropriate. Imagine someone with the experience in experimental psychology that I have being so attached to the theories that I can't even buy a loaf of bread or date a beautiful woman? Some life that would be:). This is just a hobby for me. There is a place for science in that hobby. Only geeks are so attached to science that they can not lead a normal life;). Being so attached to my education that I could not lead a "normal" life,now that's being blinded. For the record, three of the biggest "tweaks," I know are engineers, one for NASA and one with a PHD:D. How could that be:D? Because they are able to just live life and not be force to live life as the geeks we are beneath.

I see your point of view now!

They will also pick a more attractive person as being smarter than a less attractive person

I always thought the less attractive person was smarter in the public's eye :confused: :D

I see your point of view now!



I always thought the less attractive person was smarter in the public's eye :confused: :D

No, the beautiful person is considered more attractive according the the Social Psychology studies. TV news anchors for example and SOMETIMES:D political candidates. Not now though as there are some U.S. Presidential candidates that I consider down right ugly:D. When I was an undergrad we conducted an experiment and asked subjects to make judgements based solely upon a picture about the qualities of the subjects presented in photographs. Hey if you are beautiful, then you are associated with all of the positive adjectives. Ugly and it's easier to attribute even criminal characteristics to the person.

Wow! Honestly What a strange study. Considering that Engineers, Geeks, Scientists, PhDs in General are not good looking and are considered smarter.

bw, I think politicians are seldom smart, they just have lots of money and can "sell" crap to the dumb public!!

Anyhow....enough of the fun OT stuff.

Wow! Honestly What a strange study. Considering that Engineers, Geeks, Scientists, PhDs in General are not good looking and are considered smarter.

bw, I think politicians are seldom smart, they just have lots of money and can "sell" crap to the dumb public!!

Anyhow....enough of the fun OT stuff.

No it's not a strange study. The professor already knew what the results would be. It's a typical finding for such studies and well documented. See you have a lot of expectations;). My friend, for example, the NASA engineer is a "ladies" man. They just love him. Give him their phone numbers when he does not even ask! This is why testing is always a good thing. Often we have beliefs that do not hold up upon scientific investigation. I don't think there is any correlation between attractiveness and intelligence for any group. This is exactly what I mean. We want to pick upon audiophiles but everyone lives there lives and makes decisions based upon expectations and buy products everyday based upon placebo . If you were the guy hiring an engineer, my friend might not get the job:D?! Is this the part where I start insulting you:D?! This is very relevant to the discussion. We poke fun at audiophile but then it does not take long to see where we make decisions based upon "expectation" that have no basis in science. No one is immune. That's why laughing at others as some do, is silly. I suggest those guys head for the nearest mirror.

Exactly what I thought. You can't back up your position with examples and have to just resort to name calling:D.

You referred to yourself as 'just a dumb audiophile'. Hey, I guess the shoe fits.

You know, I don't do my own DBTs on prescription medicines, either. Nor do I replicate the results of every paper I read in Science or Nature.


Admit it. YOU brought up room treatments. That was a farce as you can't back that up either.

The utility of room treatments is hardly in doubt...in the real world, at least.

Not at all. I know from my work that the real fool here maybe you. Unless you can say that all of the food products you buy are generics, you are the one who is being made a fool of and may not even know it;). You could save yourself much much more than audiophiles spend on cables by stopping being suckered into buying brand name food products. Those products do not beat generic in DBT. Bet you got a Sh11 load of them at home right now:D?

Let's see, I've got some generic (store brand) corn flakes, and generic OTC and prescriptions medicines, at home right now. Does that count, you dumb audiophile?

I haven't found generic Honey Bunch of Oats yet, but if you do, please let me know. I'm happy to buy generic when I can.

Then let's just cut the crap and say that you do the same thing as audiophiles and make purchases based upon sighted listening.


Actually, I didn't audition ANY of the gear I've bought. The first time I heard it what after I brought it home. And I didn't run sighted A/Bs at home either. Then again, I don't make claims about potentially imaginary aspects of my gear's sound, either.

I have performed many DBT. I know the results. I also know that most of those on the high horses making fun of audiophile buy a ton of other stuff that is just as much of a farce. Are audiophiles "being had?" Of course but so is everyone every day of the week at the supermarket and in every facet of life in which they make purchasing decisions based upon subjective measures. Our memory is poor and our senses are poor too. Ever wonder why everything taste like chicken? :D

Doggie, you already deserve props for admitting you're just a dumb audiophile.
Now go tell the other dumb audiophiles that they are being had...and see what happens. I'll get the popcorn.

Btw, popcorn don't taste like chicken in my house. And Dolby Pro Logic II don't sound like plain stereo. See, some differences really DO matter.

Actually, I didn't audition ANY of the gear I've bought. The first time I heard it what after I brought it home. And I didn't run sighted A/Bs at home either. Then again, I don't make claims about potentially imaginary aspects of my gear's sound, either.

WOW! Don't you even listen to the gear at the retailer where you buy it?
You buy on specs alone???

Reminds me of the Wisdom Audio demo our local AV Club had at a nice super rich private home a few years back. Wisdom Audio has parties at customers' homes and then other rich customers buy their stuff.

Sound quality to all of us were loud and discoish and that's it. No big deal.
That could be your pleasure, too, for all we know. And if you've got great sounding gear (you may) consider that your good fortune and luck.

WOW! Don't you even listen to the gear at the retailer where you buy it?

No, I do my research before I buy. Mostly online these days.

You buy on specs alone???

Features, actually, and published bench test results. The solid state stuff is basically commodity-ware these days in terms of its essential functionality, the differences likely to be audible are in the feature sets, which vary from model to model...e.g. the various digital sound processing available on modern AVRs.

'Auditioning' gear in a shop is rather silly given the likely big differences in loudspeakers and acoustics in the shop vs. one's home, not to mention the huge sighted bias effects in play.

...Ever wonder why everything taste like chicken? :D

Not me:D I think coke tastes different from chicken even in a DBT:D Or lobster, or a Tbone;)

I have DBTed 2K receivers vs $200 receivers using separate amps, you dont want to know the truth of that one ;) and not that you care but the same can be said about 10K vs 5K or 2K sometimes.
;)

Yes, how true.:D Not even with $15k and $300;)

post #5 if this doesn't take you directly to it:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/tree/browse_frm/thread/664b8681ab141263/fad85dca1f8c2b13?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.audio.opinion%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F6 64b8681ab141263%2F3fd91bcb6a1522a0%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D UTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26rnum%3D1%26prev%3D%252Fgroups%253Fq%253Dsunshine%252Bste reo%252Byamaha%252Babx%252Bnousaine%2526hl%253Den%2526lr%253 D%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526oe%253DUTF-8%2526selm%253D501fl6%252524ac3%252540oxy.rust.net%2526rnum% 253D1%26#doc_3fd91bcb6a1522a0

Actually, I didn't audition ANY of the gear I've bought. The first time I heard it what after I brought it home. And I didn't run sighted A/Bs at home either. Then again, I don't make claims about potentially imaginary aspects of my gear's sound, either.

Why bother auditioning a 150.00 Reciever? You should NOT make any claims. You have an untreated room with no gear worth mentioning. No one on this forum would even care except maybe Mike Grant who has NO gear.

Doggie, you already deserve props for admitting you're just a dumb audiophile.
Now go tell the other dumb audiophiles that they are being had...and see what happens. I'll get the popcorn.

Btw, popcorn don't taste like chicken in my house. And Dolby Pro Logic II don't sound like plain stereo. See, some differences really DO matter.

The reason that I asked if you have a treated room after you brought it up and ask what gear you are using and for pics is that you can never tell on the internet when you are dealing with some 15 year old kid. I think this may be the case here.

Bulldogger, forget Krabapple (very appropriate name btw), you simply can't reason with an unreasonable person. Whether you consider yourself a subjectivist, objectivist, or somewhere in-between... Anyone who would buy audio gear without actually 'listening' to it at some point before purchasing, isn't really running on all cylinders anyway.

Why bother auditioning a 150.00 Reciever? You should NOT make any claims. You have an untreated room with no gear worth mentioning. No one on this forum would even care except maybe Mike Grant who has NO gear.

You stay classy, you self-professed dumb audiophile. :p

IMO, Mr. Grant's contributions are consistently more worthwhile, better reasoned, and informative than yours. But maybe that's just me.

Bulldogger, forget Krabapple (very appropriate name btw), you simply can't reason with an unreasonable person. Whether you consider yourself a subjectivist, objectivist, or somewhere in-between... Anyone who would buy audio gear without actually 'listening' to it at some point before purchasing, isn't really running on all cylinders anyway.


Oh dear, really? I'm afraid a great many people on this forum -- not to mention every other audio forum I've ever visited -- must fail your test then. I'm in excellent company.

(Actually, we're doing better than you -- the audio woo crowd, who seem to think everything they hear must be real, is running on empty)

The reason that I asked if you have a treated room after you brought it up and ask what gear you are using and for pics is that you can never tell on the internet when you are dealing with some 15 year old kid. I think this may be the case here.

Doggie, even if I didn't use room treatment (I do), and I had NO gear at all (I don't) , my advice would still stand or fall on its grounding in fact, not necessarily my own experience. Why is that so hard for your brain to parse? We don't always need to reinvent the wheel ourselves. DO you think doctors have tried every medicine they prescribe?

So to repeat what I asked you once already: care to challenge any of that advice on its merits, or are you just looking to play a 'gotcha' game that you've already lost?

It's quite true and quite sad, really, that I have no good gear right now! I sold it all when I moved out here and haven't yet replaced it, because my living quarters are temporary. :( Even my plasma screen is in storage.

It's quite true and quite sad, really, that I have no good gear right now! I sold it all when I moved out here and haven't yet replaced it, because my living quarters are temporary. :( Even my plasma screen is in storage.

Well, then, clearly you're not allowed to render advice here. Please ignore yourself. :D

I just visited my plasma screen today. Does that count?

I just visited my plasma screen today. Does that count?


OK, you''re allow to post about plasma TVs for a week. But no longer than that.

Btw, I've been a 'projector' guy for a few years now, but now we need a TV for the guest room. So I've got my first plasma -- a 42" Panasonic (TH42PZ700U) -- on its way to me in the mail right now. Sight unseen! Actually, I did go to some stores, but none of them had that particular size and model. I saw lots of other TVs though, plasma and LCD. But there's no way the TVs were all calibrated 'the same' to make the comparison fair...so evaluating video performance that way is about as pointless as audio visits to 'audition' gear...thus once again, having already decided on a screen size, I bought based on features, bench tests, reviews, appearance and price.

, is running on empty)

Is that like audio homeopathy? :D

No one on this forum would even care except maybe Mike Grant who has NO gear.

I didn't know that that was a prerequisite to have gear? Is that for real?

WOW! Don't you even listen to the gear at the retailer where you buy it?
You buy on specs alone???


What would listen to the gear at the retailstore give him? :confused:

Krab, this is typical Bulldogger flameout when he runs out of useful things to say. You've apparently taken him in this round.

It is easy to see the problems in Bulldogger posts, they are full of faults.

Rutgar, I've been plenty hard on krabapple too, you know. But if Bulldogger's going to bring me up in one of his little pissy fights I'm going to take a side.

But no, krabapple is not a 100% troll. He might frustrate you, and indeed his approach frustrates me sometimes, which is why he sometimes calls me a "hall monitor" or somesuch.

But he's actually brought fact into his discussions, which is more than can be said for a true troll. In fact, some of his posts have actually caused me to adjust my views; and he's basically on the same side of the argument as I am!

... and he's basically on the same side of the argument as I am!

You have just hit the crux of the problem. Argument. I'm not here to argue. There are many points of views and opinions when it comes to audio gear. If there wasn't, we wouldn't have all of the widely ranged gear in both quality and price. But there is no reason to insult people or to deliberately pick a fight. Maybe Krabapple isn't a troll in the worse sense, but he (and several others as well) doesn't exactly help to keep discussions here in the more civil realm. Others have pointed out that many subjectivist rarely post, or simply quit posting at all because they get tired of the continual attacks and insults. I quit posting in the Mike L./Chris W. cable thread because of this reason. Like I said, I don't come here to argue. I come here to read and exchange ideas about audio gear with like minded people. But that just seems impossible to do here without getting into a fight. Going back to the cable test thread, I thought we were all making progress in discussing that test and being respectful to each other. But it didn't take long before the insults started coming. And I think we both know who the usual suspects were.

Rutgar, I am sympathetic to your point of view. I do think there's a difference between a debate and an argument and I would much rather have more of the former and less of the latter. I have at times tried to be hall monitor but it is hard work indeed, and I am not on here constantly! And of course I'm not perfect either. I wish there were about 10 Mark Rubins here :)

wow I heard my name mentioned

I think AVS mods expect a higher level of posts/ less bickering here in the over $20k forum

and remember if you see a problematic post: please just report it and don't reply to it

Thanks

Go play. Come back when you are a big boy living on your own with at least some income to spend on audio. Try girls first, they are much more fun than reading the magazines. When you get a bit older, I believe you can be a much more effective troll in audio communities if you don't make yourself so obvious. Maybe by that time you will have discovered something you really enjoy doing with your time, have a life and will not bother trolling at all.

With a post like that, you're accusing others of trolling?

closed