Originally Posted by Nuance
That's correct, it did have an impact on the results, and thus the test is flawed. DBT's are all about control, that's why they are also called controlled tests. The fact that the same headphones were not used among the entire group is taking a variable that could have been controlled and making it uncontrolled. Letting them chose was a big mistake, as there should have been one static pair, that's all.
They could use one pair if they wished, they could alternate between two, or between the three, or use only one pair. They had the choice...
Look at it that way, if it was with speakers, then its like having the choice to do the test either with Salk Speakers, with JMLabs and/or with Magnepans. They could listen to only one set of speakers if they wanted, or 2 of them, or the 3. Listen 2 mins with Salks, the switch to the JMs, then back to Salks, etc... To claim that the test was flawed because they has the choice or what pair of headphones they wanted to use is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't really have an opinion on the matter, I only have a DEQ2496 and never heard a DAC1. There's basically two possibilities here. 1) They sound the same. (Seem to confirm what I've read about DACs...), and 2) they sound different.
There's your mistake; you've never heard them.p
That's my mistake? lol Dude, out of 15 people, none were able to tell the difference in a DBT... You act as if it's my mistake not to have heard the Dac1. Why? If it sounds exactly the same as the DEQ... (confirmed via DBT & measurements...
If I say I have two glasses of water, 15 people have tasted them, and they were unable to taste any difference. We've also measured the content of the water, and it is the same for both. Are you going to say: "But have you tasted it? No? That's your mistake! You should head out, go buy the water and taste it for yourself! You can't say that it'll taste the same because you've not tasted it! Go out, try to find and buy that water! And taste it for yourself! How can you know if it tastes the same if you don't taste it yourself!"
Weather under blind or sighted conditions, you've never even bothered to compare.
I've not bothered to compare because others have done a much better comparison that I would have done... A comparison which eliminates bias, preconceptions, placebo effect, mental delusions, etc... That's why I've not bothered to compare... That and the fact that I'm not interested in purchasing a 1000$ DAC1...
I love science, but to say one product cannot be superior to another because of what you've read...well, it just doesn't hold any merit in this hobby.
Right, and that's exactly why nobody said such thing.
This hobby is about the science and the listening. Why even bother listening to anything at all if you just choose based on measurements?
Again, who said such thing?
Do you just buy speakers and set them in place at home and stare at them?
Also, how do you explain clear differences in speakers that measure almost identical, such as our WI GTG the first go around at Brandon's?
Define "almost identical". Also, it depends on the accuracy of the measurements, and the types of measurements... Using more precise instruments and better/different set of measurements you'd have noticed more differences than you did.
Measurements are very important, but they aren't the be all, end all. I've heard speakers that measure extremely well but sounded bad.
Define bad... And what kind of measurements? Did you take them? Were they on-axis in an anechoic room?
It's all about tastes and a connection with the music, and measurements won't show you that.
Subjectivity vs objectivity. High fidelity vs audiofoolery... Call it what you will... "connection with the music" is quite abstract. You could have perfect speakers and go "MEh, I don't like that, no warmth.. no soul!", then some piece of **** bass bloated **** buckets: "Now that's what I'm talking about! These truly convey the essence, the soul of the music..."
Some also believe there are things that humans can hear that microphones cannot. I don't necessary subscribe to those notions, but it's a thought.
Let's not go over things which people believe... Too many idiocies to name... Let's just say that microphones are much more sensitive and reliable than your ears...
Even if I believed that they sounded different, what would be my basis for doing so? A placebo prone sighted test using my imperfect human hearing and acoustic memory? I'd have to face the fact that I might have been wrong when I thought I heard differences...
Ah yes, but isn't it your "imperfect human hearing" that you will be using to listen to your system? Oh, the irony.
Ah yes, better believe
that gear X is better than gear Y even if it sounds exactly the same... Staying deluded and holding false beliefs is the sensible thing to do... If we think we can hear difference, who cares if there's not! It's not like we can waste money on useless crap...
Uh yeah, just one problem chief, the test was flawed.
Flawed how? From users having the choice of headphones? Nope... That doesn't ruin the DBT at all. Some people will never be happy about any tests and will always find ways to complain and criticize tests where the results does not fit their beliefs, preconceptions, bias, etc...
Speak for yourself dude! Ask my wife how often I've put her behind the acoustically transparent but visually opaque speaker cloth while I had her swap cables, DAC's, amps, etc. I guess I am more methodical than you when choosing gear. At least we both have one thing in common: we want to pay as little as possible for a great sounding system.
That's not a DBT btw... Even if you did, are you 100% your results were statistically viable? That everything was level matched?
A simple comparison, and the differencd in audible distortion with the DEQ was all I needed to hear.
Let me guess... Sighted test? Pretty cool how you managed to hear distortion that wasn't even measurable.
You must have fantastic hearing... Much better than the measuring gear they used... Did you rip off your shirt and fly off to save a damsel in distress afterwards superman?
I didn't much care for how stale the DAC1 was either, for what it's worth.
Yeah I don't know what's that worth... What do you mean by stale? It's a DAC what did you expect? Just converts digital to analog... It won't do pirouettes or sing you a tune...
I think I remember finding some measurements of the DEQ showing a little more distortion than normal. I may be confusing it with the SMS-1 or another EQ device, so I'll search around and PM you the link if I find it.
ok thanks I'm curious to see it if it's really the DEQ and another piece of equipment you might be confusing it with... I've looked for it, but "deq2496 measurements" return a trillion links related to its ability to connect a microphone and do actual measurements... sigh...
It sure would explain what I heard, which is more than you can say, since you haven't even bother to compare anything to your DEQ (or so you say).
More or less. Analog out of laptop = garbage. Analog out of SBLive! ext. SC = garbage. Analog out of NAD 541i or something, was quite close, wasn't exactly sure one way or another... Haven't compared it with another DAC if that's what you mean.
Problem is I wouldn't be sure what kind of credibility I could give to what you thought you heard... You see folks (15 people) who could also hear differences have done a DBT to compare the DEQ & Dac1 and have been unable to tell them apart under blind conditions, even measurements indicate that there's no differences to be heard... So honestly, unless you pass a DBT and prove that you can actually do better than the other 15 guys who thought they could hear differences, what rational reason could you give me to take your word over the DBTs and measurements? I thought so...
get back to the "reviews" and say we did.
You must have clearly missed where I said said reviews are useless, as they are driven by marketing dollars and always praise the product up for review. They are also nothing more than opinions, just like mine and yours.
Why would I listen to someone who gets paid to fluff products that may actually be trash? The measurements compared to the reviewers comments are the real telling truth, as they frequently never coincide. The proof is right there.
You see, if we look at the bolded parts, I think we agree on the concepts here. That reviews/opinions are subjective and possibly flawed/false... And measurements in contrast are objective... Where we seem to disagree is DBTs. You seem to view a DBT as just another opinion... I disagree, it's pretty much hard evidence. A DBT where 15 people fail to demonstrate that X is audibly different trumps 1 opinion claiming that they do...
Do we see eye to eye here? Can you see why a 16th's guy's opinion that he can hear difference is somewhat useless when the 15 folks failed a DBT and the 16th guy never did a DBT?
I take no offense, no worries. I hope you don't either, as this is simply a debate. Anyway, if you haven't actually put that naughty, nasty extra component in your system, you simply can't know, therefore can't comment. Do your precious reviewers shun preamps and claim they're Satan's spawn because they are another element in the chain? I think not. So I guess you only pay attention to their opinions when they say what you want to hear?
Well I don't see this as a debate but to each its own... In fact, it's not really like adding a preamp in my system, it's adding a second preamp as the DEQ is already fulfilling the role of a preamp... It's like adding a second
pair of RCA/speaker cables hoping it'll improve the sound... Adding a 2nd preamp can't improve the signal, only degrade it... At best, it can be 100% transparent, so again, what would be the point?