Originally Posted by Bruins29
Sure but I dont think you could have a test without some flaws. Again, there is no way a $12K system should not blow away a $700 system. It did not even come close to blowing it away SQ wise.
ok, so here we go.
#1" small smaple size
#2 no subject to peer reviewed criticism for publication
#3 published on a website with no verifiable means of determining accuracy of reporting
#4 conclusion is poorly written, confusing, and links provided are in spanish to explain some of their conclusions (see below)
#5 "trained listeners" did not have acces to both systems for a period of time to acclimate to differences between them and be able to discern them--while this has not traditionally been a part of dbt tests it should be to minimize the possibility that small differences do exist betwene systems
#6 potential for poor system "synergy" there are multiple variables within this dbt (i.e. many different components switched simultaneously and not tested separately--this essentially invalidates their conclusion entirely from a "science" perspective by itself
additionally one possibility is that that some components did not work well with each other or covered up differences that could have existed if one component at a time were tested.
nowfor those of you who think that one can use other dbt's of unidentical equipment to bridge the gap, you cant except to console yourself. remember this is a "science" forum.
We are convinced that the best way to identify differences in between systems (or individual equipment parts) is by instant commutation. However, some people challenges the use of an external ABX box (usually by people unused to conduct DBT's) arguing that the use of a commuter like the ABX might modify or flatten the response of the systems, masking the differences they so easily claim to hear at home or at an audio store (or even at some shows).
This challenge does not hold water, as we can see from the measurements conducted to the ABX we use:
However, and inspite of what we know, we have modify the method to avoid using the ABX box. This is the sole and only reason for the use of the "HABX" (Human ABX) by changing the speaker cables.
Another argument used against DBT's is that testers feels pressed by the surroundings or that time is not sufficient to identify wich is the system or piece of equipment subject of testing.
Well, to avoid being subject of such arguments, we have gone from the usual DBT questioning "wich is the one"? to "wich one you like best"? This should eliminate the pressure that so often is called upon to demerit the use of DBT's, furthermore, on this occasion there were not preagreed a max listening time, and each listener/tester could use the music of his choice.
The results speaks by itself:
How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?
And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?
Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?
Well, we think that each can reach to its own conclussion..."
so those are just a preliminary list. now im not saying there is no merit to this or it doesn't mean anything or isn't interesting but it is far from being the end-all-be-all of proof of anything.