or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD Transport importance vs. DAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD Transport importance vs. DAC - Page 9

post #241 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Then let me give you a simple one to get you started. I'll assume that, like most audiophiles, you believe you can here the difference between a lossless digital music file and one compressed to 256 kbps MP3. I know I can't hear the difference because I've done the test. Perhaps you can. The nice part of a test like this is that it doesn't require any level matching or comparator because you use the same playback equipment for the comparisons.

Rip a music track in some lossless format such as WAV to your hard drive. Then rip the same track to another file as a 256 mp3. If you have the equipment to play music files from your hard drive through your sound system then you're all set. If you don't, then you need to save the files out to CD's so you can play them with a CD player.

The bias controlled test is very simple. Have a friend or family member play the files in a random succession at whatever rate of speed you like without your knowing which is the wav and which is the mp3. You can have the computer make up a random schedule if you like. You need to identify each file as either the wav or the mp3. The friend scores your reponses as right or wrong. Do 20 or 30 iterations. The scores will tell you whether or not you hear a difference. 60% right or wrong or higher would be statistically significant. Less than 60% would verge on random and 50%, of course, would be perfectly random - i.e. no audible difference.

Then, if you prefer, take one of the files and listen to it every day for as long as you like until you feel you have gotten accustomed to it. Then do the bias controlled test again to see if the scores are similar to the original run. If they are similar, then the time spent getting accustomed to it was meaningless. If the scores are significantly different, then you're on to something.

This is an easy thing to set up. It costs only the price of a couple of CD-R's at most and you can do it at your preferred pace. Do it in minutes or do it months. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that it be bias controlled and random as described above. That should be easy and perhaps even entertaining and instructive.

Wow. You have a different definition of "simple" than I do.

I wonder how easy it is to listen long term (say, over two weeks) to something while ensuring you don't know what it is, and then repeating that aspect of the test many times. Does my wife have to change the CD in the player every time I want to play a CD other than the test CD during the two weeks? It seems like this is a test that could take a lot of effort, and perhaps a few months (or more) to complete if you need to do multiple trials of long term listening to compare to the multiple trials of short term listening. Not that I don't appreciate ideas as to how to do something like this, but it seems like a awful lot of effort, unless I'm missing something. At then at end, is there an argument anyway about what is statistically significant unless you do the trials many times (by which time I probably will be so old I won't be able to hear at all)?

I'm kinda interested in doing a test just to compare the compressed and uncompressed files, however. To my ears, lossless files of the same song on different MP3 players sound different, but then there is a different amp in the chain, so I'm kinda curious to compare the different compression rates on one player. Maybe I'll try that test when I have a moment.
post #242 of 296
I'll give you hint based on my own experiences. The longer you take to do the test, the closer to random the results will be. In other words, if there is an audible difference in an A/B test made, that audible difference may disappear in a long term test. The truth is that our sonic "muscle memory" really is fairly short term as others have said. You will have more reliable results if you do the 20 or 30 iterations one right after the other. A test like this can be done in an hour. I only did 10 iterations. I was sure I couldn't tell the 256 mp3 from the wav after the first few iterations. I kept asking my wife if she was following the random instruction sheet and she said she was. Completely inaudible to me.

But do it as you like. Not a problem.

If you want to test your long term "muscle memory" then it doesn't matter if you know which version you are listening to over a long period of time to get accustomed to it. What matters is that the comparative listening test you do after the familiarization period be done blind.
post #243 of 296
FMW - Why just a hint? And your final conclusion is?????? BTW, would that final conclusion hint at your thought on the effectiveness of esoteric power cords and cables, as well as pure cocabola wood that lifts those $$$$$ cables off the floor?
post #244 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoney99 View Post

FMW - Why just a hint? And your final conclusion is?????? BTW, would that final conclusion hint at your thought on the effectiveness of esoteric power cords and cables, as well as pure cocabola wood that lifts those $$$$$ cables off the floor?

My my. Aren't we combative. The hint was that I think, if he decides to do the tests, he will discover that "getting used" to the sound of the recording will tend to reduce rather than enhance audible differences - exactly the opposite of his beliefs. I thought that was clear enough. What final conclusion would you like me to comment on? That question wasn't clear at all to me.

I've commented extensively on our cable tests in these forums. I'll let you look up my comments for yourself.
post #245 of 296
Easy big fella!! You misunderstood!!!!!!!

But why hint at a conclusion when you can tell us your conclusion - or not if you prefer.

Either way, it's a friendly discussion and there's no hostility intended. Smiley face
post #246 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I'll give you hint based on my own experiences. The longer you take to do the test, the closer to random the results will be. In other words, if there is an audible difference in an A/B test made, that audible difference may disappear in a long term test. The truth is that our sonic "muscle memory" really is fairly short term as others have said. You will have more reliable results if you do the 20 or 30 iterations one right after the other. A test like this can be done in an hour.

A hint assumes (or presumes) there is a right answer. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And I don't agree that the short term trials are as revealing as the longer term listening I described above, or that "memory" is short, at least as I have described the longer term listening . Anyway, my own experience in listening both ways is that short term trials are not particularly useful in appreciating subtle differences, although I concede that I have not listened both ways "blind." Anyway, it appears we just have to agree to disagree.
post #247 of 296
Smitty, if I've got to listen to it for two weeks, then maybe go back to the orignal and back to the other one for similar lengths of time...I've bought it even if I don't like it.
post #248 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

A hint assumes (or presumes) there is a right answer. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And I don't agree that the short term trials are as revealing as the longer term listening I described above, or that "memory" is short, at least as I have described the longer term listening . Anyway, my own experience in listening both ways is that short term trials are not particularly useful in appreciating subtle differences, although I concede that I have not listened both ways "blind." Anyway, it appears we just have to agree to disagree.

No, not at all. What you need to do is conduct the tests. We disagree on the appropriate time frame for tests. That's fine. As long as they are bias controlled, then they are valid. Do the tests with any time frame you like and let's look at the results. Do them with different time frames and compare the results. You may get different numbers with different time frames. I don't know. I'm not aware of any published bias controlled listening tests made over a long period of time. My only experience with really long term situations was with the aforementioned B&W 801 listening test.

My experience is with tests made in a single day. We tried different time frames both in terms of the length of the listening time and the time between iterations. In our experience results got closer to random when the time between iterations increased. But I'm talking about the differences between say, a minute, between iterations and 10 minutes. You may find otherwise if the time frame is long enough to get accustomed to the sound. I don't know. Let me know. I'm certainly interested in the result.
post #249 of 296
Smitty, IIRC, not only have you not listened to them blind, but they've never been properly level matched either. Perhaps jj_0001, who sometimes posts here and has far more experience on practical (personal) matters as well as a signifcant understanding of the research in this field, will find the time and interest to comment.
post #250 of 296
I've listened to many 256k mp3's even 128k mp3's, as well as Apples 128k songs that I couldn't distinguish the difference to the original CD. However I've also heard many songs in which I could hear a difference with both mp3's and a few of them a substancial difference.

It is so funny for someone to say they did a test and determined that everything sounds the same. I've had the same song played from the same CD on the same system "not sound the same" primarily due to listening levels of the song. At a very low level compared to a high level, some sounds may not come out and others can be masked.
post #251 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

A hint assumes (or presumes) there is a right answer. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And I don't agree that the short term trials are as revealing as the longer term listening I described above, or that "memory" is short, at least as I have described the longer term listening . Anyway, my own experience in listening both ways is that short term trials are not particularly useful in appreciating subtle differences, although I concede that I have not listened both ways "blind." Anyway, it appears we just have to agree to disagree.

Well, let's see.

I think you're confusing a few things. Allow me to state a few basic principles that are fully confirmed by study after study in the scientific realm.

1) All tests need to be DBT's, or a formal cognate
2) All tests need to be level matched
3) You must train listeners, make them comfortable, and provide feedback. This is where "long term" comes in. You have to learn what you're listening for, in a non-blind, comfortable setting identical to the one that you'll be tested on in the DBT.
4) You must choose appropriate material.
5) You must learn how to use clickless, low-latency switching between A, B and X, or A B and C (in an ABChr test).
6) Then, and only then, you do the dbt. Long, short, fast slow, whatever floats your boat.

Some advice. Clickless switching using short-term loudness memory, which is shown to last about 200 milliseconds, is time and again shown to be the most effective kind of testing for the actual audibility of small differences.

IF you can show an audible difference, you may find that longer-term listening is what you need to establish preference, or establish the actual distance between signals.

The issue of auditory memory, etc, is not really in dispute, ditto for the principles discusssed above. This is not a question of opinion, it is a question of principles learned in testable, verifiable, falsifiable experiments that have been repeated time and again.

If you wish to argue otherwise, more than opinion is necessary, you need, in fact, extraordinary evidence to support any such extraordinary claim.

As to what you personally prefer, that's another story. Preference (aside of the "end of my nose" criterion) is inviolate.
post #252 of 296
Just stumpled into this thread and I'm finding it quite interesting as I'm looking at buying a dedicated CD player, front runner is a used Arcam CD23 or CD92 from Audiogon. I was of the mindset that the differences in sound quality of CD players are mininal and no point owning something "nice" up until recently.

Not long ago I did some tests at home playing CDs in my xbox 360, Toshiba A2 HD-DVD player, Oppo 981, and my PS3 all hooked up digitally. So based on my thinking at that time, I shouldn't hear a difference since they are all digital transports. They definitely did not sound the same. I understand the argument that players read 1's and 0's but I'm believing there is more to creating good sound than this. I feel that if I am finding a difference is using a digital transport then throw in different DAC's should also make a difference.

I have been reading lots of user comments on various pages including Audioreview about different players. I'm having a hard time believing all these people are imagining that they hear an audible difference. Many of these people have had a lot of experience and have owned a lot of gear in there lives.

I don't know if there is truly a difference or not. I don't know if my level matching technique was correct or not. I took an SPL meter and played a CD and tried to find the volume that gave comparable readings.

As I keep read various AV sources on this subject, I may change my mind on buying a dedicated CD player but as of now I'm going to stick with my plan of finding a higher quality dedicated CD player in a few months.

Thanks everyone for your input.
post #253 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchuckp View Post


I have been reading lots of user comments on various pages including Audioreview about different players. I'm having a hard time believing all these people are imagining that they hear an audible difference. Many of these people have had a lot of experience and have owned a lot of gear in there lives.

You can believe it. The entire high end audio industry is built on the placebo effect. I used to be a believer myself. I've also owned a lot of equipment over the 40+ years I've been involved in audio. The difference between me and them is that I have done the bias controlled listening tests and they have not.
post #254 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

You can believe it. The entire high end audio industry is built on the placebo effect. I used to be a believer myself. I've also owned a lot of equipment over the 40+ years I've been involved in audio. The difference between me and them is that I have done the bias controlled listening tests and they have not.

So when you refer to the hi end audio industry being built on the placebo effect I assume you are still mostly referring to CD players. There is no way I'm believing that all recievers (for example) are equal. There's no way I'm believing that a HTIB (even if you put good speakers on it) will sound just as good as a high dollar receiver or even a mid-dollar receiver.
post #255 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchuckp View Post

So when you refer to the hi end audio industry being built on the placebo effect I assume you are still mostly referring to CD players. There is no way I'm believing that all recievers (for example) are equal. There's no way I'm believing that a HTIB (even if you put good speakers on it) will sound just as good as a high dollar receiver or even a mid-dollar receiver.

The best thing to do is listen for yourself, and do what makes you happy. I've had a similar experience to yours, i.e., I listened to a few players very carefully and found a noticeable difference between some (although I was using good quality headphones and a high-end headphone amp, which may make it easier to discern certain differences). The notion that all of the players sounded exactly the same is ludicrous to me based on what I heard. But you really have to make your own judgment, based on what you heard and at the same time being open to what the data or science purports to show. Good luck!
post #256 of 296
Quote:


So when you refer to the hi end audio industry being built on the placebo effect I assume you are still mostly referring to CD players. There is no way I'm believing that all recievers (for example) are equal. There's no way I'm believing that a HTIB (even if you put good speakers on it) will sound just as good as a high dollar receiver or even a mid-dollar receiver.

Well, a receiver's got a lot of elements that are designed to sound different. But the amplifier portion of one receiver is probably not going to sound different from the amplifier in another receiver, unless one or both are driven beyond their limits.

Anything with a speaker in it will definitely sound different.

Quote:


Not long ago I did some tests at home playing CDs in my xbox 360, Toshiba A2 HD-DVD player, Oppo 981, and my PS3 all hooked up digitally. So based on my thinking at that time, I shouldn't hear a difference since they are all digital transports. They definitely did not sound the same. I understand the argument that players read 1's and 0's but I'm believing there is more to creating good sound than this. I feel that if I am finding a difference is using a digital transport then throw in different DAC's should also make a difference.

But did you compare them following the criteria JJ laid out above? And no, level-matching requires more precision than a consumer-grade SPL meter can offer.
post #257 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchuckp View Post

So when you refer to the hi end audio industry being built on the placebo effect I assume you are still mostly referring to CD players. There is no way I'm believing that all recievers (for example) are equal. There's no way I'm believing that a HTIB (even if you put good speakers on it) will sound just as good as a high dollar receiver or even a mid-dollar receiver.

I didn't say everything sounds the same. I said the entire industry is built around the placebo effect. You have manufacturers who judge their designs by sighted listening tests. They provide feedback and products to magazine reveiwers who rate the products using sighted listening tests and you have consumers who, because of the same placebo effect, hear the things others suggested they would hear when they plug them in.

As an example. The vast majority of interconnect cables produce no "sound" regardless of selling price. That isn't an opinion, that is test results. Yet magazine reviewers and consumers continue to hear audible differences in them where none actually exist. That's the placebo effect. People spend big bucks on cables, not only because they can, but because they believe they will achieve an improvement in sound quality and, thanks to the placebo effect, they do - even where none actually exists. Without placebo effect there would be no high end interconnect cable industry.

I spent many years as a high end audiophile and a few years in the industry. I consider the whole high end industry to be based on nothing but beliefs and biases. Not the same thing as saying that everything sounds the same. Everything doesn't. But to know what does and what doesn't you need to control the biases.
post #258 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchuckp View Post

There's no way I'm believing that a HTIB (even if you put good speakers on it) will sound just as good as a high dollar receiver or even a mid-dollar receiver.

Let's look at that a little deeper. I don't have experience with an HTIB so I'll provide some input based on some assumptions. Most A/V receivers have an automated EQ program designed to adjust the output to fit room acoustics. As soon as you run that program, the receiver will take on a unique sound - not because a unique sound was designed into the receiver but because the frequency response was altered by equalization.

If you were not to run the EQ program on either an A/V receiver or the HTIB receiver, my guess would be that both would sound the same in a bias controlled listening test as long as they were level matched at a level that caused neither one of them to be overdriven. There's the assumption.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a better receiver. I'm saying that sound quality wouldn't be the reason to do so. My A/V receiver is a mid priced unit (Pioneer 92) that I chose it because it has a good video processor that does a good job with the compressed SD signals from my satellite service. Whether it does a great job, I don't know. But I do know that it does a better job than either the TV and the lower priced receiver I had before. While it has fairly powerful amplifiers for a receiver and runs efficiently and coolly, it doesn't sound any different than a lower priced receiver would as long as I don't run the automated EQ feature. I made the receiver upgrade not because of sound but because it has a better digital processor than either the TV or the former receiver.
post #259 of 296

~~Let me try to sum these all up and thereby extract out ' some sort of understanding, to meet all senses here involved; Sorry for my grammar, am not American but can use the language enough to communicate 'hopefully so’ First of all I got say fact vs. Science” fact to me wins although one may call it placebo Placebo has its physical properties, in medicine it does heal even to incurable diseases! in music if a certain system is able to create a consistence placebo of enjoyment of its sound ,then IL go for it ,and even more when it does it without discriminating from people to people, which brings it to get rated as a best pick by the year ; now that high end equipment ,oversampling and filtering, as well as higher output stages, improved power supply, a better transport and better DAC's/amps , ~~ - signal levels - frequency response - added or removed harmonics - absolute and relative phase - noise level sensitivity - signal levels above or below a given (eg. pink or white) noise floor - distortion (wave shaping) - filtering applied to pink or white noise (the ability to detect a notch) - spatial orientation testing it with abx test won’t show any audible difference compared to 99.cent Chinese system " But there will be a huge huge difference in sound quality! Which translates in transparency and joy! To add a little more; ~~I read an article about an amp designer who could perform a number of tweaks on an amp that would change the sound. Most people that he showed this to did not discern the difference until he actually told them what the difference was and how to listen for it. After that most could easily hear the differences. It takes a trained ear to know what to listen for and most people don't have the resources to do that. I myself have had about a dozen amps in the past 2 years and none of them have sounded the same to me. A couple of them did not take me long to get rid of because of their sound but only a couple of times did I try to do direct A/B comparisons. The long term listening was much more valuable to me. Most people just get whatever they have and don't change it around much, but if go out and find those that do change their components periodically most will have found some components they've liked more than other ones, amps especially. Amps are one of the most talked about component in regards to audio. A lot of people have an external amp to a receiver and most, including me will attest to the sonic benefits of that. So what does all of that mean? That everyone just hears what they want? I looked online and Audio Advisor has about 28 CD only players for sale, none of which would be available in a regular Best Buy or Circuit City. The simple economics speak for the fact that there indeed is a significant difference in CD players. The only other thing that may have more choices is speakers. And to add even more; Let’s use as analogue, vision, one may have two pictures they are exactly the same visible to the eye; but quality wise they may differ dramatically, and that's what's the resolution of the image is ~~PPI - Pixels per Inch DPI - Dots per Inch; I myself love sound quality ,its quality that I love in sound ,therefore did my own repeatedly blind testing using lecture cd's testing its transparency ,ease of listening without distraction without fatigue ,as well testing music cd's ,to find how much detail and beautifully joy to listen as a whole ,and did find huge difference when setting had a better dac better speakers , What will an abx test help me here? LOL

post #260 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

~~Let me try to sum these all up and thereby extract out ' some sort of understanding, to meet all senses here involved; Sorry for my grammar, am not American but can use the language enough to communicate 'hopefully so’ First of all I got say fact vs. Science” fact to me wins although one may call it placebo Placebo has its physical properties, in medicine it does heal even to incurable diseases! in music if a certain system is able to create a consistence placebo of enjoyment of its sound ,then IL go for it ,and even more when it does it without discriminating from people to people, which brings it to get rated as a best pick by the year ; now that high end equipment ,oversampling and filtering, as well as higher output stages, improved power supply, a better transport and better DAC's/amps , ~~ - signal levels - frequency response - added or removed harmonics - absolute and relative phase - noise level sensitivity - signal levels above or below a given (eg. pink or white) noise floor - distortion (wave shaping) - filtering applied to pink or white noise (the ability to detect a notch) - spatial orientation testing it with abx test won’t show any audible difference compared to 99.cent Chinese system " But there will be a huge huge difference in sound quality! Which translates in transparency and joy! To add a little more; ~~I read an article about an amp designer who could perform a number of tweaks on an amp that would change the sound. Most people that he showed this to did not discern the difference until he actually told them what the difference was and how to listen for it. After that most could easily hear the differences. It takes a trained ear to know what to listen for and most people don't have the resources to do that. I myself have had about a dozen amps in the past 2 years and none of them have sounded the same to me. A couple of them did not take me long to get rid of because of their sound but only a couple of times did I try to do direct A/B comparisons. The long term listening was much more valuable to me. Most people just get whatever they have and don't change it around much, but if go out and find those that do change their components periodically most will have found some components they've liked more than other ones, amps especially. Amps are one of the most talked about component in regards to audio. A lot of people have an external amp to a receiver and most, including me will attest to the sonic benefits of that. So what does all of that mean? That everyone just hears what they want? I looked online and Audio Advisor has about 28 CD only players for sale, none of which would be available in a regular Best Buy or Circuit City. The simple economics speak for the fact that there indeed is a significant difference in CD players. The only other thing that may have more choices is speakers. And to add even more; Let’s use as analogue, vision, one may have two pictures they are exactly the same visible to the eye; but quality wise they may differ dramatically, and that's what's the resolution of the image is ~~PPI - Pixels per Inch DPI - Dots per Inch; I myself love sound quality ,its quality that I love in sound ,therefore did my own repeatedly blind testing using lecture cd's testing its transparency ,ease of listening without distraction without fatigue ,as well testing music cd's ,to find how much detail and beautifully joy to listen as a whole ,and did find huge difference when setting had a better dac better speakers , What will an abx test help me here? LOL

yeah i stopped reading after the third or fourth line. although your "fact vs science" made chuckle.

try some paragraphs maybe i will try reading again....but what i did read looked like a bunch of baloney....so maybe i wont read it....
post #261 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

~~Let me try to sum these all up and thereby extract out ' some sort of understanding, to meet all senses here involved; Sorry for my grammar, am not American but can use the language enough to communicate 'hopefully so’ First of all I got say fact vs. Science” fact to me wins although one may call it placebo

Facts are never contradictory to science, so "Fact versus Science" is an oxymoron.
Quote:
Placebo has its physical properties, in medicine it does heal even to incurable diseases!

Placeboes do not cure. If a person taking a placebo is cured, it is quite clear that that person's body or some therapeutic influence other than the placebo is responsible.
Quote:
in music if a certain system is able to create a consistence placebo of enjoyment of its sound ,then IL go for it ,and even more when it does it without discriminating from people to people, which brings it to get rated as a best pick by the year

One problem with placeboes is that their *cures* often do not last. One of te audio applications of the placebo effect is audiophiles who constantly churn their systems seeking the ideal CD, DAC, or power amplifier. That violates the idea that the purpose of an audio system is to provide enjoyment via the listening to of well-reproduced music. Instead, the equipment becomes an end in itself. If a person does this as a hobby, fine. However many are mislead and think that they are getting what can not be obtained, no way!

Quote:
ow that high end equipment ,oversampling and filtering, as well as higher output stages, improved power supply, a better transport and better DAC's/amps , ~~ - signal levels - frequency response - added or removed harmonics - absolute and relative phase - noise level sensitivity - signal levels above or below a given (eg. pink or white) noise floor - distortion (wave shaping) - filtering applied to pink or white noise (the ability to detect a notch) - spatial orientation testing it with abx test won’t show any audible difference compared to 99.cent Chinese system " But there will be a huge huge difference in sound quality! Which translates in transparency and joy! To add a little more;

If there is an improvement in sound quality then it will be reliable, and will show up in time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests.
Quote:
~~I read an article about an amp designer who could perform a number of tweaks on an amp that would change the sound.

I can do that - I can screw up the response of a amplifer as well as any other soldering iron jocky! ;-)
Quote:
Most people that he showed this to did not discern the difference until he actually told them what the difference was and how to listen for it. After that most could easily hear the differences. It takes a trained ear to know what to listen for and most people don't have the resources to do that.

That's fair. This designer is by no means unique, nor does he have exceptional wisdom. My friends and I have done this sort of thing since the middle 1970s. There are documents from interational standards bodies that are well known in the industy that formalize listener training. Various means for doing it have been widely published for decades.
Quote:
I myself have had about a dozen amps in the past 2 years and none of them have sounded the same to me. A couple of them did not take me long to get rid of because of their sound but only a couple of times did I try to do direct A/B comparisons.

Which really sounded different, and which sounded different only due to poorly done listening tests and/or expectation effects? Properly done listening tests give a credible answer to that question.
Quote:
The long term listening was much more valuable to me.

Actually, absent reliable listening tests you probably don't know what form of listening is most valuable to you. At this point it appears that hearing differences among different amplifiers is very, very important to you. Again if that is how you wish to execute your audio hobby, please be my guest and do it in good health! I prefer to have a more stable, good sounding system and use it to, heaven forbid, listen to music and drama.
Quote:
Most people just get whatever they have and don't change it around much, but if go out and find those that do change their components periodically most will have found some components they've liked more than other ones, amps especially. Amps are one of the most talked about component in regards to audio. A lot of people have an external amp to a receiver and most, including me will attest to the sonic benefits of that.

Nothing wrong with having an audio system that you like. I recently went through a fairly massive system upgrade and most of my system is equipment that I obtained and put into service in the past year. Sound quality was greatly enhanced.
Quote:
So what does all of that mean? That everyone just hears what they want?

"It depends".
Quote:
I looked online and Audio Advisor has about 28 CD only players for sale, none of which would be available in a regular Best Buy or Circuit City.

What is wrong with equipment from Best Buy. Does equipment pick up bad sound cooties by being sold by them?

BTW are you so poorly informed that you don't know that Circuit City has been gone for years?
Quote:
The simple economics speak for the fact that there indeed is a significant difference in CD players.

BTW are you so poorly informed that you don't know that the CD player market has been in sharp decline for years? Catalogs prove nothing about sales. Catalogs are often just another form of advertising. Manufacturer's often sponsor them.. What you see in catalogs is what people want to sell, not what they necessarily sell.
post #262 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

What will an abx test help me here? LOL

It only does one thing. It teaches where audible differences actually exist or do not exist. Nothing more. Nothing less.
post #263 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post


yeah i stopped reading after the third or fourth line. although your "fact vs science" made chuckle.

try some paragraphs maybe i will try reading again....but what i did read looked like a bunch of baloney....so maybe i wont read it....

well; just prove me scientifically that we  exist in  reality and isnt just  a dream ,' 

and your inability to do that is my proof of of the pudding that science dosent cover all facts ,but facts among other includes as well science "

post #264 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Facts are never contradictory to science, so "Fact versus Science" is an oxymoron.
facts are contradictory to science ! did you read the bible about jacob been scientifically dead but the bible proclaimed ,no he is not dead ;
so many times if we look around we can see miracles happens ,all the way out of the realm of  how the law of science dictates  "

Placeboes do not cure. If a person taking a placebo is cured, it is quite clear that that person's body or some therapeutic influence other than the placebo is responsible.
is this an oppinoin '? then its just yours not mines !

One problem with placeboes is that their *cures* often do not last. One of te audio applications of the placebo effect is audiophiles who constantly churn their systems seeking the ideal CD, DAC, or power amplifier. That violates the idea that the purpose of an audio system is to provide enjoyment via the listening to of well-reproduced music. Instead, the equipment becomes an end in itself. If a person does this as a hobby, fine. However many are mislead and think that they are getting what can not be obtained, no way!
well; the same applies to science if there was in sufficient power applied then things return over the time ,the other paragraph to talk about ,i got lost somewhere in their way ;may you repeat them using different words ?? my understanding is that one is connected to the other ,if you apply beeter quality eqippment you get better quality reproduction ,but it depends which path you go is it transparency and fidelity ,or joy and dynamics ;

If there is an improvement in sound quality then it will be reliable, and will show up in time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests.
why you going all around with test to proof ,while your own ears is right in front of you ,which you test by listening ,do you enjoy it go for it nevertheless what test show and nevertheless what other may call placebo ,but you are here to enjoy ,right or wrong ,and it happens to be as there is such a thing as common sense ,COMMON ! the same in music high end equipment gets best picked by many at once ,its common ;although other so caLLED SCIENTIFIC TEST NON BIASED REPEATEDLY DOUBLE BLIND RESULTS IN NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE 

I can do that - I can screw up the response of a amplifer as well as any other soldering iron jocky! ;-)
That's fair. This designer is by no means unique, nor does he have exceptional wisdom. My friends and I have done this sort of thing since the middle 1970s. There are documents from interational standards bodies that are well known in the industy that formalize listener training. Various means for doing it have been widely published for decades.
Which really sounded different, and which sounded different only due to poorly done listening tests and/or expectation effects? Properly done listening tests give a credible answer to that question.
Actually, absent reliable listening tests you probably don't know what form of listening is most valuable to you. At this point it appears that hearing differences among different amplifiers is very, very important to you. Again if that is how you wish to execute your audio hobby, please be my guest and do it in good health! I prefer to have a more stable, good sounding system and use it to, heaven forbid, listen to music and drama.
Nothing wrong with having an audio system that you like. I recently went through a fairly massive system upgrade and most of my system is equipment that I obtained and put into service in the past year. Sound quality was greatly enhanced.
"It depends".
What is wrong with equipment from Best Buy. Does equipment pick up bad sound cooties by being sold by them?

BTW are you so poorly informed that you don't know that Circuit City has been gone for years?
BTW are you so poorly informed that you don't know that the CD player market has been in sharp decline for years?
HOW MANY CARE FOR SOUND QUALITY ? or they are even aware of such a thing ? most all they look for is for features and options and controls ,new tech, and practically oriented improvements ,
Catalogs prove nothing about sales. Catalogs are often just another form of advertising. Manufacturer's often sponsor them.. What you see in catalogs is what people want to sell, not what they necessarily sell.
post #265 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

yeah i stopped reading after the third or fourth line. although your "fact vs science" made chuckle.


try some paragraphs maybe i will try reading again....but what i did read looked like a bunch of baloney....so maybe i wont read it....
well; just prove me scientifically that we  exist in  reality and isnt just  a dream ,' 
and your inability to do that is my proof of of the pudding that science dosent cover all facts ,but facts among other includes as well science "
More nonsense. Let me know when you can bring anything credible to the table then perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.
post #266 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post


More nonsense. Let me know when you can bring anything credible to the table then perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.

are you waiting me to downgrade to your level of sense ?    or me to wait you to upgrade to my level " 

post #267 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

More nonsense. Let me know when you can bring anything credible to the table then perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.
are you waiting me to downgrade to your level of sense ?    or me to wait you to upgrade to my level " 

not sure what you mean. post something credible and we can discuss. if you are here to troll then there is no further discussion that i can have with you.
post #268 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post


not sure what you mean. post something credible and we can discuss. if you are here to troll then there is no further discussion that i can have with you.

are you waiting me to change the term of credible ,to your liking' ,or me to wait you put credit to it ,and it will become credible 

post #269 of 296
Google translate issues? Because I'm seeing a bunch of nonsensical jibberish.
post #270 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by starstern View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

not sure what you mean. post something credible and we can discuss. if you are here to troll then there is no further discussion that i can have with you.
are you waiting me to change the term of credible ,to your liking' ,or me to wait you put credit to it ,and it will become credible 

i would like to not have to wade through nonsense like this:
Quote:
well; just prove me scientifically that we exist in reality and isnt just a dream ,'
and your inability to do that is my proof of of the pudding that science dosent cover all facts ,but facts among other includes as well science "

in order to have a technical discussion loose the metaphysics and stick to physics. if you have credible aka, plausible, rational, reasonable, conclusive, solid, valid, or likely, technical things to discuss i'm all in. focusing on the incredible aka, absurd, implausible, preposterous, ridiculous, flimsy, fishy, or unlikely then i have better things to do and im not interested in further discussion.....with the exception of being able to point and laugh.

so far you have brought the incredible, do you have anything credible?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD Transport importance vs. DAC