Threads that discuss science on av-SCIENCE-forum get deleted? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 11:59 AM - Thread Starter
 
Cowclops's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hardware-speculation threads go on for hundreds of pages to the point where they are completely impossible to follow, but just a few pages in an enjoyable discussion on the science behind audible changes in sound stage gets not just locked, but deleted.

I'd like to discuss it with the moderators. I don't intend it to be a hit and run abuse of the system, but if they're going take the time to make sure I can't say what I want to say (no matter how on topic and relevant it is) it sends the message that AVSForum is striving to stomp out the kind of discourse that leads to new and good discoveries.

Yes, it is also clear that this post is NOT on topic, but I don't know for sure which moderator outright deleted the thread so I will leave it up to them to see if they'd like to come to an understanding.

Regardless of how deserved your power is, using your power to stomp a conversation because you don't agree with it is total intellectual dishonesty.

I like to talk about stuff here, but whoever deleted the thread clearly sent me a message that dissenting opinions are not welcome.

Of course, this post does not belong here, but I hope that whoever is going to delete it sends me a msg explaining why they feel the need to quash what was an attempt at staying true to the service's own domain name.
Cowclops is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 12:17 PM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 147
If people would direct posts at each others opinions/posts instead of each other (posters) then maybe David would let the threads stay open. Once personal commentaries start nothing good follows.

larry

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #3 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 12:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AcuraCL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Suburban Baltimore
Posts: 3,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Right. I can't recall ever seeing a thread go away when the content was on-topic, not political/religious, or not personally insulting. Sometimes there's just too much crap for the admins to clean up. They have better things to do than police people with inadequate self-control.
AcuraCL is offline  
post #4 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 01:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Cowclops - you can only keep saying the same thing over and over so many times before NOBODY wants to hear it anymore. Quit beating a dead horse, for crissakes. Your behavior borders on anti-social and this forum has no place for that.
Rammitinski is offline  
post #5 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 02:14 PM
Member
 
johnElliott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
well I was enjoying the discussion and I find the whole science and psychology of hi -fi very interesting and mysterious.

What is truth? From a scientific standpoint, no one's been able to *prove* they can hear differences in cables/amps/transports, yet thousands aggresively claim to hear them.

there's some combination of acoustic, electronic and behavioural sciences at work and it deserves discussion and research.
johnElliott is offline  
post #6 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 03:56 PM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Frankly Cowclops, I think both of the threads you started were thinly disguised trolls.

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
post #7 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 05:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
Thunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As usual cowclops, you make no sense. Worthless jibber.
Thunder is offline  
post #8 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 09:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
Cowclops's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Attacking the person instead of the person's ideas. I now understand... the threads were not closed because I couldn't present a rational argument.

They were closed because the opposing side couldn't respond without outright name calling. Probably because the opposing side didn't enjoy having their long held beliefs challenged by a request for empirical evidence.

Nuff said.
Cowclops is offline  
post #9 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 10:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
well I was enjoying the discussion and I find the whole science and psychology of hi -fi very interesting and mysterious.

What is truth? From a scientific standpoint, no one's been able to *prove* they can hear differences in cables/amps/transports, yet thousands aggresively claim to hear them.

there's some combination of acoustic, electronic and behavioural sciences at work and it deserves discussion and research.

Very relevant comment indeed, thanks. But, much of what you are asking for has been researched. Maybe not enough, but we know why audible differences go away when the audiophile is asked to use only his ears and hearing, not his eyes and knowing which component he is listening at all times.

Science knows this and has accepted the protocol to control for human bias, at least statistically speaking. Many has a lot at stake on this issue. The makers would go out of business when amps cannot be differentiated, or for that matter cables. Why buy a 5 lb of sugar from brand x when brand y is 20% less?

Belief system is difficult to change. One only has to look at other consumer marketplaces and religion, for that matter.

Humans, it appears are not very skeptical. That is hard work and the easy road is taken.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #10 of 390 Old 02-20-2006, 10:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder
As usual cowclops, you make no sense. Worthless jibber.

Did you refute any of his posts? Or, his idea too threatening and too hard to refute? Perhaps you don't understand them? Then it becomes jibber.

By the way, I see you are in Ontario. So is Don Morrison Audio. I hear he would be happy to see how well audiophiles can perform when they cannot see the component, only use their ears :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #11 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 08:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TjMV3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would have loved to read Cowclops' post. I find the subject very interesting and relevent.
TjMV3 is offline  
post #12 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 08:40 AM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TjMV3
I would have loved to read Cowclops' post. I find the subject very interesting and relevent.
If you read the other thread he started you won't have missed much in the second thread.
Isn't this a step backwards for AVSForum?

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
post #13 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 09:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
Cowclops's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
From wikipedia:

"The observer-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect

Unconsciously is the key word. Because you so starkly believe that there must be audible differences between two nominally distortion-free devices, you will find them.

I don't know why there is so much of a knee jerk reaction to double blind testing. All it does is eliminate the bias caused by said observer-expectancy effect.

If the differences between CD players are SO easy to hear and SO night and day, then passing any sort of blind test should be a cakewalk... right?

And if not... then that was kinda my point all along, that worrying about imperceptibly subtle details is kind of pointless.

Its not like scientific testing is only a skeptics tool. I'm sure every single person in here could reliably identify the differences between most speakers. In such a case, it proves that perceptible differences must exist if most people can tell the difference reliably.
Cowclops is offline  
post #14 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 10:50 AM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
I don't know why there is so much of a knee jerk reaction to double blind testing. All it does is eliminate the bias caused by said observer-expectancy effect.
In most cases it's a flawed test, because it doesn't produce reliable results compared to reality. Reality is when I listen to my music, on my stereo, in my room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
And if not... then that was kinda my point all along, that worrying about imperceptibly subtle details is kind of pointless.
I wish you were right Cow. I could have saved a lot of money on amps and a CD player if I had just found my NAD T751 and Pioneer DV-563a were good enough. I tried, I really did. The problem I found was that music through the HT system was just not good enough to command my attention for more than a cut or two. With my stereo, I can listen for hours on end, and still want to listen more. There's just a lot more there to listen to, better rhythm, more details, better imaging, etc etc. I don't care how many times you or Tom Nousaine say it's BS. It's not, I have real proof, in a real situation, not some phony test.

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
post #15 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 11:12 AM
Member
 
dg1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
But, much of what you are asking for has been researched. Maybe not enough, but we know why audible differences go away when the audiophile is asked to use only his ears and hearing, not his eyes and knowing which component he is listening at all times.

Science knows this and has accepted the protocol to control for human bias, at least statistically speaking.
Charles,

The value of blind testing in well-designed and properly performed scientific research is not in question. I think most people here (as do I) have issues with how blind testing is done regarding audio equipment.

I personally have not seen an ABx test reported on this forum that was done with anything approaching scientific rigor. I have a problem with such tests being passed off as "scientific" when in reality they are not.

I am not saying that such tests have not been done correctly somewhere, I am just not aware that they have.

dave
dg1968 is offline  
post #16 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 12:41 PM
Member
 
johnElliott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiobomber
In most cases it's a flawed test, because it doesn't produce reliable results compared to reality. Reality is when I listen to my music, on my stereo, in my room.

I wish you were right Cow. I could have saved a lot of money on amps and a CD player if I had just found my NAD T751 and Pioneer DV-563a were good enough. I tried, I really did. The problem I found was that music through the HT system was just not good enough to command my attention for more than a cut or two. With my stereo, I can listen for hours on end, and still want to listen more. There's just a lot more there to listen to, better rhythm, more details, better imaging, etc etc. I don't care how many times you or Tom Nousaine say it's BS. It's not, I have real proof, in a real situation, not some phony test.
audiobomber, you are not offering any new or useful information and you have no proof.

I suggest the discussion be limited to something that can be debated. That means if you want to claim that you can hear differences, you have to identify what the difference is and why it is so, and what specific scientific theory or accepted laws are in play. Otherwise no value is being added to the thread and we might as well discuss this in the Area51 and UFO forums.

OK, so re: cd transports and soundstage

My understanding is that the sound stage and image is created by level and phase differences between the channels, and then the room contributes with reflections and comb filtering. I've seen no evidence that a properly engineered CD player affects the soundstage. I can't hear the difference myself, but if you can why and how?
johnElliott is offline  
post #17 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnElliot
audiobomber, you are not offering any new or useful information and you have no proof.

I suggest the discussion be limited to something that can be debated. That means if you want to claim that you can hear differences, you have to identify what the difference is and why it is so, and what specific scientific theory or accepted laws are in play. Otherwise no value is being added to the thread and we might as well discuss this in the Area51 and UFO forums.
John,

I absolutely agree with your perception.

From what I've been reading so far, I think Cowclops have been wrestling with very subjective opinions which have been identified as "reality" by some of the posters that do not agree with Cowclops point of view.

It is very unfortunate that an interesting thread was closed due to an apparent lack or dominion of the debating rules. In fact I read quite a lot ad hominems against Cowclops.

I'm not saying that Cowclops point of view is more true. It is just that his opponents arguments are merely anechdotical and subjective.

Just remember one thing: the load on proof is on the believer's side, not the skeptic side.
If someone states that a CD transport, DAC or whatever sounds different from another one, it should be proved by an objective, thorough methodology.
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #18 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 02:18 PM
Senior Member
 
machani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiobomber
In most cases it's a flawed test, because it doesn't produce reliable results compared to reality. Reality is when I listen to my music, on my stereo, in my room.
I entirely agree! Heres an interesting read on the flawed nature of DBTs. Granted, its written by a vendor, but makes a lot of sense nonetheless.

C N Machani
machani is offline  
post #19 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Senior Member
 
machani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
audiobomber, you are not offering any new or useful information and you have no proof.

I suggest the discussion be limited to something that can be debated. That means if you want to claim that you can hear differences, you have to identify what the difference is and why it is so, and what specific scientific theory or accepted laws are in play. Otherwise no value is being added to the thread and we might as well discuss this in the Area51 and UFO forums.

OK, so re: cd transports and soundstage

My understanding is that the sound stage and image is created by level and phase differences between the channels, and then the room contributes with reflections and comb filtering. I've seen no evidence that a properly engineered CD player affects the soundstage. I can't hear the difference myself, but if you can why and how?
For a good sounstage, a CDP must be able to produce an very accurately timed analog signal, assuming the D/A conversion of the digital bitstream is flawless. Any distortion to the signal can and will affect the soundstage.

In the thread that got deleted, I wrote a simple test to show the effect of THD on sounstage.

I have a Tube TAD-150 preamp connected to a Cayin TA-30 amp. The Cayin amp itself is an integrated amp with a passive line stage (i.e., the volume pot is basically a variable resistor). The THD on the Cayin amp is lowest when the line stage is bypassed by putting the volume to max.

If I lower the volume on the amp to say, 50% and increase the volume on the preamp by the corresponding amount to keep the output volume from the amp the same, I am in effect increasing the THD from the amp for the same output volume. With the increased THD, the soundstage begins to "collapse".

Since different CDPs have different measured parameters (THD, SNR, etc.) does not stand to reason that the soundstages produced by different CDPs will be different?

(Note: that the TAD-150 tube preamp has a very interesting volume pot design which makes the amp see a constant resistance while varying the gain, keeping its own THD low.)

C N Machani
machani is offline  
post #20 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 03:23 PM
Member
 
--@H@B-->'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: webster, ma
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My way of looking at this is purely subjective.

If we were talking about speakers than we wouldnt even argue about what is accepted standard. We couldnt because we allow subjective points of view.

However, when it comes to anywhere else in the signal path there is an opinion that subjectivism no longer applies. A cd player reads bits, thats it. An amplifier amplifies signal, and any deviation from flat reproduction is design flaw.

This is why i find myself supporting both camps. Ruler flat never sounds that good to me, so i like something with personality. I dont accept that as flaw. A shanling cd player vs a denon deck are two different animals. Conversely if we keep the argument that equipment should display clinical accuracy to the laws of accepted standards, than fine i understand it. It holds logic.

I just dont suscribe to it.

If i have offended anyone i didnt want to. I apologize sincerely. Now we understand one another. H@B
--@H@B--> is offline  
post #21 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 04:06 PM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
audiobomber, you are not offering any new or useful information and you have no proof.
Have the rules of evidence changed now? If I know you, and I see, and hear you rob a corner store, then what I observed with my senses is accepted as proof. I know my system, my room and my music. Taking that familiarity away is an artificial situation. Listening to music for enjoyment is not a contest. That's why DBT's don't work in most cases for audio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
I suggest the discussion be limited to something that can be debated. That means if you want to claim that you can hear differences, you have to identify what the difference is and why it is so, and what specific scientific theory or accepted laws are in play.
And who put you in charge of the rules for debate? I'm no expert in how various distortions affect sound, and you're clearly no expert in DBT methodology, or else you'd be aware of the myriad ways they can go wrong. Parroting flawed DBT protocols doesn't constitute proof of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
OK, so re: cd transports and soundstage
I don't recall any specific discussion of how a transport affects soundstage. Here's an explanation I posted in the first thread of how transports affect sound, written by John Westlake, a highly respected designer of CD players. I would say that Jitter and RFI affect soundstage, because they blur and lose the low-level detail where soundstage info resides.

Dan,

I would like the chance to expand on your question concerning Audio quality of the T1 transport vers your Cambridge Audio DiscMagic.


Currently I’m only aware of 3 parameters that affect the sound quality of CD transports: -

1. Data Accuracy

This is the most basic function of the transport – with a correctly functioning CD player and reasonable condition Disc the audio Data will be 100% Bit accurate, this means that the Data that was originally recorded on the Disc during Mastering is fully recovered Bit for Bit – in the worst case (this assumes reasonable condition Discs) I’ve never seen more then 50 “interpolated samples†of error across the whole disc – now consider that a 60 Minute CD has 158.76 Million samples, there’s no way that anybody could reasonably argue that 50 “interpolated errors†can effect the GENRAL OVERALL audio quality – by this I don’t mean when the disc skips etc.

The T1 employs a unique two prong strategy to recover Bit accurate data from the disc

A. Automatic RF gain Control on the RF signal recovered from the Disc – believe it or not most CD players only have Fixed RF Gain, as the reflectivity of the disc drops, so does the RF level, and so increasing the chance of Bit errors (this is not to be confused with Laser Diode Power Level regulation found on all players (APC) to insure a fixed Laser power, as Laser output changes with heat & aging etc).

B. If the AGC circuit reaches Max. Gain (such as with badly oxidized discs, or CD-RW media), then the Laser power is increased – this is only used under the most serious conditions to prevent premature Laser aging.

To rest assure any concerns a user may have about Data accuracy, the T1 has an error counter displaying “Interpolated†errors and any Non corrected errors, and a “Disk condition†indicator (I will not say any more about this feature until the product is fully released). These features allow the user to confirm the condition of there original CD’s and CD-R / CD-RW recorded media.


2. SPDIF Output Phase Noise (Jitter)

This is where Digital meets the realms of the real world – same Bit for Bit accurate Data but very different sound between Transports and even Interlink cables etc etc????

Lowest Jitter will not always guarantee best audio performance (It very much depends on what happens down steam at the DAC) – it’s the distribution (signal content) of the Phase Noise that is critical, types of Phase Noise that is ALLWAYS detrimental :-

A. DATA correlated artifacts. These are signals or spurie within the Phase Noise plots that are directly correlated to the “Data processing†of the CD transport such as spurie from the CD servo sections, Data recovery and error correction, control MCU etc.

B. Fixed frequency Non Data correlated discrete artifacts, such as mains hum, non synchronies Front panel displays & MCU’s etc.

It’s generally accepted that the SPDIF standard is poorly conceived as the Master Clock is located within the CD transport section (where Phase Noise (AKA Jitter) is unimportant), where as the DAC which is extremely Jitter sensitive is fed from a “Recovered†clock which is buried within the SPDIF Data Stream. To make matters worse, no attempt has been made to de-correlate or “randomized†the SPDIF Data during transmission, so that the clock recovered by SPDIF receiver is guaranteed to be heavily contaminated by Data correlated Phase Noise – Jitter of the very worst kind.

A guaranteed a solution to the deficiencies of SPDIF is to design the DAC as the “Master†clock device – i.e. a low phase noise clock located next the to DAC – and send the clock back to the transport via a second connection – preferably optical for best isolation. Arcam, Cambridge Audio (Clock Lock) Deltec / DPA (Deltran) & Pink Triangle use this method. As mention earlier, the transport is not sensitive to clock jitter, so no particular care need be taken for this second link. If designed and implemented correctly, this method GARANTEES that the DAC operates from the lowest Phase Noise clock – with no PLL’s in the signal path.

The T1 requires a 128Fs +/- 100ppm (5.6448MHz) optical input clock (via standard Plastic Fiber Toslink) to Clock-Lock – this is compatible with the system I used at Cambridge Audio on DiscMagic and IsoMagic.


3. RF & Earth Leakage Current introduced Phase Noise spurie & noise products.

The effects of RF & Earth Leakage Current should not be underestimated, they can effect the DAC (and audio system) via any electrical inputs (SPDIF), audio outputs (via the Feedback path of the output Opamps), and the mains supply input.

The T1 is recommend to be connected to the DAC / Digital Amplifier by optical isolation only (for both Clock & SPDIF – the units are not sensitive to Jitter in Clock-Lock mode), this isolates the Ground Planes between the DAC / Digital amplifier & Transport – removing corridors for RF & Earth Leakage Currents to flow.

The T1 AC Mains input is heavily filtered on its Primary and Secondary side to prevent its own internal RF contaminating other audio equipment connected via the common Mains supply.

I’ve seen products (CD’s & DAC’s) that have interfered with television reception via the Mains supply only (no SPDIF or audio leads connected), so interference via this route should not be underestimated. If the RF interference can effect the TV reception, then it sure well affect the audio quality of a Hi-Fi system.

By Clock-Locking your IsoMagic & DiscMagic with optical interconnect, you have removed audio degradation via sources 1 & 2, leaving only source 3 (RF noise) as an area where you could improve upon the “Audio†performance of your current set-up, and its cheaper to buy a Mains Filter, then it is to buy a T1 transport, you could even try looping the Mains power cord to the DiscMagic around a large ferrite bead –end nearest the player.

John Westlake

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
post #22 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
Attacking the person instead of the person's ideas. I now understand... the threads were not closed because I couldn't present a rational argument.

They were closed because the opposing side couldn't respond without outright name calling. Probably because the opposing side didn't enjoy having their long held beliefs challenged by a request for empirical evidence.

Nuff said.

Now why would you think facts get in their way :D
CharlesJ is offline  
post #23 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
[quote=Cowclops]From wikipedia:

"The observer-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect

I don't know why there is so much of a knee jerk reaction to double blind testing. All it does is eliminate the bias caused by said observer-expectancy effect.


They heard about it but don't like the answers, so they resist to the end. :D
I ran into an amp designer over the years, failed every DBT amp comparison he participated, so he blames the DBT protocol to this day :D





I'm sure every single person in here could reliably identify the differences between most speakers. In such a case, it proves that perceptible differences must exist if most people can tell the difference reliably.

But, bias still is in the picture as to which speaker they should use, and some differences are lost in the statistics, so close. Some interesting reading:

Toole, F. E. ' Listening Tests, Turning Opinions into Facts,' Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

Toole, F. E. 'Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference,' Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

Toole, F. E. Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences,' Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E. ' Hearing is Believing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things,' 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #24 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1968
Charles,

The value of blind testing in well-designed and properly performed scientific research is not in question. I think most people here (as do I) have issues with how blind testing is done regarding audio equipment.

I personally have not seen an ABx test reported on this forum that was done with anything approaching scientific rigor. I have a problem with such tests being passed off as "scientific" when in reality they are not.

I am not saying that such tests have not been done correctly somewhere, I am just not aware that they have.

dave

So, you blindly accept a worthless test, sighted test, as having merit when audible differences is claimed??? Have you taken the claimant to the task on these??? Or, that is not important, only how well a DBT is conducted?
DBT in the home serves a better purpose than a sighted test for differences and no, it doesn't need to be as rigorous as the ones in research labs. And, it will give more reliable information that any sighted comparisons, period.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #25 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani
I entirely agree! Heres an interesting read on the flawed nature of DBTs. Granted, its written by a vendor, but makes a lot of sense nonetheless.

Thanks for the better link. I have seen this before. Full of flaws, errors, etc, including that TAS reference to that Dr. He is wrong. Placebo effect has been demonstrated, time and time again.
You should scrutinize your sources better.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #26 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
[quote=audiobomber]In most cases it's a flawed test, because it doesn't produce reliable results compared to reality.

Reality? What is your reference you measure reality against?



Reality is when I listen to my music, on my stereo, in my room.


It may be a reality to the act of listening, certainly not what you may think what you perceive. That aspect is unreliable as you are using human senses to detect and is prone to be unreliable; eye witness testimony in court is not reliable. I wonder why that is.


I don't care how many times you or Tom Nousaine say it's BS. It's not, I have real proof, in a real situation, not some phony test.

And your testing is not phony? It is full of flaws, error, you name it. Besides, why do you need to use your eyes to hear? Don't trust only your hearing??? Multiple senses confuse.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #27 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:32 PM
Member
 
dg1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
So, you blindly accept a worthless test, sighted test, as having merit when audible differences is claimed???

DBT in the home serves a better purpose than a sighted test for differences and no, it doesn't need to be as rigorous as the ones in research labs. And, it will give more reliable information that any sighted comparisons, period.
In my opinion, and in those of many others who understand the principles of experimental design, improperly conducted DBTs carry weight equal to sighted comparisons, and should be considered anecdotal.

And yes, if reasonable conclusions are to be drawn from them, they should be performed with principles similar to controlled, scientific studies.

Unless this is done, they will give information that is no more reliable than that gained from sighted comparisons, and in fact may be worse because the results are usually presented under the guise of "science". Period.
dg1968 is offline  
post #28 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani

Since different CDPs have different measured parameters (THD, SNR, etc.) does not stand to reason that the soundstages produced by different CDPs will be different?

Not if those measured parameters are below the threshold of detection. Well made modern CD players meet this criteria whether this is accepted or not.
The human ear doesn't have limitless ability and its limits are know to acousticians and some audio engineers. Obviously not all as the others make silly claims not supported by facts.

Oh, your THd theory on sound stage, where is that paper so that I can expand my knowledge?
CharlesJ is offline  
post #29 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 06:01 PM
Member
 
johnElliott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I guess the thread's headed for a DBT debate. I don't think you have to conduct a perfect test in lab conditions to get meaningful results.

Aren't you a little curious as to what your senses tell you? You must be or you wouldn't be posting in this thread.

So why not just setup your own unbiased tests and try them and report back.

Me, I'm going to have a blind-test party, and test some cables, amps, players and ics.

But, to keep it fun, I'm going to test some other stuff too, like coke/pepsi and some sausages.
johnElliott is offline  
post #30 of 390 Old 02-21-2006, 07:40 PM
Member
 
audiobomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnElliott
Me, I'm going to have a blind-test party, and test some cables, amps, players and ics.

But, to keep it fun, I'm going to test some other stuff too, like coke/pepsi and some sausages.
That reminds me of the time I failed the Pepsi taste test. I was a lifetime Coke drinker, but I picked Pepsi in the blind test. So naturally I switched to Pepsi. Except I don't like Pepsi, and the test gave me a bad result. In reality I liked Coke, and still do. In fact if I can't get Coke, I order Mountain Dew, not Pepsi.

Your DBT's won't "prove" anything useful.

Dan
audiobomber is offline  
Closed Thread CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off