Quote:
Originally Posted by
QQQ /forum/post/16220273
So Frantz
, please stop muddying the waters with the constant mis-characterizations of those who ask for evidence.
Q, I was put on spot to detail to the N'th degree to explain how I did my testing. I think it is only fair to hear that details of how people have performed their testing and how they arrived at the conclusion that using double-blind methodology there is no difference in such equipment.
I still have not heard the answer to the following:
1. How the DBL was conducted.
2. Who participated in it and their hearing capabilities.
3. What content was used.
4. What were they looking for.
Without the above information, and I don't mean this commented addressed to you, it seems that people are just repeating what they have read but not practiced. So far, I have not learned anything about the opposing position because no specific information is provided.
Quote:
With regard to Amir's experience it was just that, an experience, impossible to quantify or refute. It's seems to me he made a reasonable effort within the confines of what he had to work with to eliminate bias.
Thanks. So let's hear the details of the experiments on the other side to see if their efforts were more or less rigorous than mine. Only then do we see if folks had earn the privilege to stop every thread with a call for DBL test
.
Quote:
As for my own blind tests (NOT double blind, which are more difficult to do) and experiences, I have reported them many times. I would compare a 30K Mark Levinson setup (35 Transport and 30 DAC if I recall the model numbers correctly) versus a $500 Denon player. The result was the same as every audiophile cable test that has ever been performed. People would wax poetic about the "HUGE" differences in sound stage, depth, rhythm and so on. Until they didn't know which one was being played. Without except at that moment their golden ears would suddenly become tin ears and they could not guess with any consistency whether they were listening to the 30K player or the $500 one.
I bet you I can teach you to hear the difference in blind comparisons that are set up correctly. While some people are born with this ability, many people are not. As such, walking out confused from a blind test is normal for just about everyone especially if proper testing is not conducted to find the differences.
For formal audio testing, we usually put people through a three month learning routine. And we go through a special process before the tests start to make sure the person knows what they have to work with. For example, I have 3 minute songs where only a fraction of a second, yes, a fraction of a second, is revealing of compression flaws. Unless you can identify that fraction, then the rest of the test is useless. Most people just listen to the music instead of using it as a test tone to detect real differences in equipment.
Now, you can argue successfully that "HUGE" is the wrong way to describe the differences here. I think the difference can be big to someone, but can't be big for most people. Indeed, many people would believe there is no difference at all let alone big. In my case, the difference is small but significant in the way that enhances the experience. I can't explain why without giving away the answer to questions I have posed
.
Quote:
As John Dunleavy and others have done, I would also enjoy testing by telling people that they were listening to the $500 player when they were actually listening to the 30K player and visa versa to test for placebo effect.
This reminds me of a funny story. I was in Fry's about 8-10 years ago. I see a sign for a home theater demonstration and I walk in. I see a nice and comfortable theater so I sit down. A couple of other people show up and then a sales guy comes in and starts playing a movie with lots of special effects. There were a bunch of large speakers all around but I kept thinking, boy that doesn't sound good for this kind of setup. The audio was harsh and really jarring.
The clip finishes and the sales guy turns on the lights. He then goes and asks the first guy in front if he was blown away by the sound. The guy, who you could tell was not into audio and video said: "the voices were not clear. I couldn't understand what they were saying!" The salesman in shock, asked him three times and the guy like a stuck record kept saying "it wasn't not very clear." The sales guy then proceeds to remove the grills and show tiny Bose Accoustimass speakers. With his illusion shattered, he couldn't find a tap dance shoe that would get him out of the jam!
So the placebo effect does not always work as thought.
In addition, I can easily setup experiments that would nullify any difference. Go and ask average person on the street if 128 MP3 is as good as the CD and they say yes (I know this from very large scale testing we did at Microsoft). Does that make 128 MP3 the same as the CD? No. Heck even 384 Kbps MP3 doesn't sound the same as the CD. Come to think of it that would be a great test of your hearing ability. Can you readily tell 384 Kbps compressed music from the original? If not, don't bother going further.
Quote:
In a word, 90% of high-end audio is PURE bullsh*t.
I hate to say this but 90% of all audio is PURE bullsh*t. I used to repair audio equipment. You wouldn't believe how many times I opened typical consumer gear just to find the same parts as the other. Other times I would open a box and it would be two thirds empty yet the front panel and lights look like a much higher end gear.
Most CE companies these days take reference designs from IC manufacturers and simply repackage them. Yes, I am annoyed by non-sense description of what makes some high-end gear better according to the maker. But then again I am just as annoyed with Panasonic's ad in CEPro magazine claiming that their plasma has 18 bit resolution and 120% of HDTV resulting in better picture. Given that, do we stop considering differences between flat panels? No.
We can't control the marketing. But we can learn about these technologies. That is my goal with participating in this discussion. I think science and subjectivity do mix well. Knowing what Fletcher and Munson curves are, does help you understand what Jitter is bad even though that research was conducted 70 years ago before digital music even existed! At the end of the day it is a fine outcome if no one changes their stance, but walks away more educated. Hence the questions I put forth at the beginning of this thread
.