Originally Posted by SoNic67
Originally Posted by arnyk
OK, It's your
personal equipment that you claim is superior and it is your
ears that you seem to be claiming to be superior. There's a common thread here, can you see it? ;-)
Maybe is a disconnect here
Yes, your post appears to be missing the points I made. Your post is full of misrepresentation of posts I recently made to this thread (detailed below). Please cease and desist!
. Reading what I said I understand the following: I test MY equipment versus MY equipment. I don't claim that my equipment is better than others.
Doesn't matter because of the relationships among your equipment that I established and that you have not addressed.
I have poor and good DAC's/CD/DVD/SACD, fitted with almost all the "famous" chips used in past and in present.
Given that we found that we and others found CD players were difficult or impossible to hear differences among back in the 1980s
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
The age of the chips in the players should be irrelevant.
That's why I think there is no subconscious desire to found one better than another.
Your thoughts in this matter appear to be misinformed. Reliable evidence has been presented to you and you seem to want to deny it. As they say "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
If you own ten cars, and you need to find witch has the lowest gas mileage, or the fastest quarter-mile time, you have no incentive to lie.
However, if you are at all aware of how these claims are tested, you don't settle the matter by subjective means. You don't drive the cars around town on successive days and give your opinion based on just your naive perceptions. You settle the speed issue with a stopwatch. You settle the gas economy question with a standardized course and measurements of actual fuel used.
Especially when the first reaction is "I can't believe what I am hearing, that chip should sound worse", or "I can't believe this, the DSD should sound better than the CD but it doesn't".
Evidence gathered by unreliable means does not become more reliable just because it matches up with evidence gathered by reliable means. Gather data using unreliable means and its bad data no matter what it is.
Also, level matching is overrated. You do that when you hear first time a song. When you use the same song 1000 times, it doesn't matter if you are at 0.1dB or at 3dB matching. If I turn the level down 3dB, I don't hear the music sounding worse. Maybe if I listen to a song that I never heard it would matter, I don't know... Again that "level matching" goes back the listener qualifications comments that I posted above.
The level matching issue is so easy to demonstrate in a simple practical demonstration, and requiring it is so generally well accepted that you are discrediting yourself in the eyes of anybody who is knowledgeable about subjective testing. Even the rabid golden ears like Robert Harley disagree with you!
All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance.
More false denial. I clearly said that our listeners were hand picked, experienced audiophiles and engineers. I clearly said that we looked at both averaged and individual scores.
It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.
The above is a flagrant misrepresentaion of information that has been presented here recently:
"many of the DBTs I've been involved with used a listening panel composed of many experienced audiophiles. We looked at their individual scores to see if there were any golden ears, and we summed them together to get a more sensitive test with more trials."
Please stop misrepresenting my posts!