or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Noticable Difference in Sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Noticable Difference in Sound - Page 7  

post #181 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
All experiments are biased by the observer/observers and affect the final outcome.
Again, I fail to see how this demonstrates that double blind testing is as inherently biased as unblinded observation.

If all experiments were equally fallable due to bias, there would be little point to conducting science at all.

Some experiments ARE better than others.
post #182 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
Again, I fail to see how this demonstrates that double blind testing is as inherently biased as unblinded observation.

If all experiments were equally fallable due to bias, there would be little point to conducting science at all.

Some experiments ARE better than others.
That is a red herring. When did I say that double blind testing is as inherently biased as unblinded observation? I didn't say anything of the sort. That is your argument, not mine. One which I have not argued.

Not that I wouldn't argue it or couldn't, but it was never a postulation. It was your assumption, without base.
post #183 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
the test of mike lavigne will have cable switch and record results by a reputable and reliable person. and there are lots of limitations and procedures to be sorted out. i trust mike's experience and ears and i believe he will pass using his equipment. mainly because mike started his hifi journey thru vinyl with listening techniques developed thru many many tweaks and alignment of cartridges and tone arms. this is a skill not easily developed for those who started with digital source.

no doubt about it on my part. what are your doubts?

My doubts? To date, no one has demonstrated the ability to hear audible differences between such cables, in a credible test, no one.

Your support for his ability is based in a belief system only, nothing more. His 'journey' guarantees nothing, is a certificate for nothing.
But, if that test is conducted and he fails, what will your position be then? Will you accept it? Make excuses? Will that indicate that you will not hear differences?
post #184 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
i am not the only one on earth to hear differences in cdp.
.

I am sure there are some euphonic CDp out there by design. Perhaps that is what you tested???
post #185 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
That is a red herring. When did I say that double blind testing is as inherently biased as unblinded observation?
Well, let's see...

You claim that there is a clearly audible difference between two components based solely on your sighted observations.

Individuals on this board suggested that there is a significant amount of bias in sighted observation, and that DBT might reveal that there is, in fact, no audible difference.

You then stated that all experiments are inherently subjective, as a result of biases held by the participants. (I can't quite follow what this has to do with quantum mechanics, but, at any rate, I concede the point.)

Now, you seem to intimate that because of the inherent subjectivity of DBT, you would not necessarily reject your sighted observations even if you were unable to discern an audible difference in a blinded test.

I think that is essentially the same argument, and so not such a red herring.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
Not that I wouldn't argue it or couldn't
By all means, I would love to read it...
post #186 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
Well, let's see...

You claim that there is a clearly audible difference between two components based solely on your sighted observations.

Individuals on this board suggested that there is a significant amount of bias in sighted observation, and that DBT might reveal that there is, in fact, no audible difference.
I never got involved in this argument. Though I do hear differences, I think it has a lot to do with the output stages and balanced vs. single ended connections in a system that processes signals as balanced internally. The biggest and most glaring differences were using HDCD vs. non-HDCD, which was the original topic, not DBT and normal CDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
You then stated that all experiments are inherently subjective, as a result of biases held by the participants. (I can't quite follow what this has to do with quantum mechanics, but, at any rate, I concede the point.)
Perhaps you don't understand Schrodinger's Cat and the Observer effect. That is nothing to be embarrassed about BTW, not many people do understand it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
Now, you seem to infer that because of the inherent subjectivity of DBT, you would not necessarily reject your sighted observations even if you were unable to discern an audible difference in a blinded test.
When did I say this? All I did was call into question CharlesJ's attitude (who BTW, I now suspect might be you posting under another name, or vs. versa ;)) by pointing out that no test is objective and science is fallable. That he himself is guilty of the things he seems to place himself above, i.e. he is religiously devoted to an outmoded way of interpreting events. His mode of thinking has been popular since not too long after Cartesian physics was accepted as the sole truth in reality, though nowadays Cartesian physics (and the mechanistic view of the universe) has been blown apart by quantum level physics. Perhaps Descartes was wrong and there is an evil deceiver... :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
I think that is essentially the same argument, and so not such a red herring.
You are incorrect. It is a red herring. You are injecting your own argument, one which I never made, and then arguing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
By all means, I would love to read it...
If you want to discuss it, feel free to message me. No need for either of us to further derail the thread. Then we can be more casual about it, since we won't have to worry about responding quick enough to maintain thread coherence.
post #187 of 203
This thread was fun for a while. Now it has grown way too long and really, really boring.
post #188 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
This thread was fun for a while. Now it has grown way too long and really, really boring.
So stop keeping it alive with pointless commentary...
post #189 of 203
Quote:
Though I do hear differences, I think it has a lot to do with the output stages and balanced vs. single ended connections in a system that processes signals as balanced internally. The biggest and most glaring differences were using HDCD vs. non-HDCD, which was the original topic, not DBT and normal CDs.
Well, it's an interesting hypothesis but until you find a way to test it and examine other known sources of differences, it'll remain simply a hypothesis. When you say CharlesJ is "religiously devoted to an outmoded way of interpreting events.", I'd suggest you think twice about that because your sighted, non-level matched, I didn't even know if the FR of both units coming out of the analog stages is the same, is not especially scientific.

So you've got a preference for a particular HDCD encoded piece sounding better to your ears non-HDCD decoded right now. So what? You haven't done nearly enough work to understand why that is. If you want the answers, if you want to test your hypothesis, then do the damned work alreay and stop leaving your hypothesis dangling like it has some sort of conspiracy theory merit. Frankly, it doesn't.

Further, "His mode of thinking has been popular since not too long after Cartesian physics was accepted as the sole truth in reality..." is hardly an accurate portrayal of science. It suggest that science simply stopped, sat back in a rocking chair, and said, "well that's the way the universe works folks. enjoy." Stop postulating about science if you've no intention of doing it.

And FWIW, all Shrodinger's Cat proved was that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to large things like cats, apples, and all that. It has definite areas of applications that don't extend to other things. Besides, the cat was a pussy. ;)
post #190 of 203
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Well, it's an interesting hypothesis but until you find a way to test it and examine other known sources of differences, it'll remain simply a hypothesis. When you say CharlesJ is "religiously devoted to an outmoded way of interpreting events.", I'd suggest you think twice about that because your sighted, non-level matched, I didn't even know if the FR of both units coming out of the analog stages is the same, is not especially scientific.

So you've got a preference for a particular HDCD encoded piece sounding better to your ears non-HDCD decoded right now. So what? You haven't done nearly enough work to understand why that is. If you want the answers, if you want to test your hypothesis, then do the damned work alreay and stop leaving your hypothesis dangling like it has some sort of conspiracy theory merit. Frankly, it doesn't.
I'm content with Mr. Hansens and other people's posted information on HDCD and why it sounded different. I don't have the resources, time or people around to perform a DBT. I'm quite satisfied with my conclusions and I don't need to waste any more time on the problem. I suggest you go buy the gear and do some DBTs yourself and report back to us with your results if you have the time and resources. I did the testing as much as was possible without setting up a DBT just to please people who I don't know and who have an obvious agenda IMO. A DBT obviously can't be done by me alone, and sadly, my wife would laugh in my face if I put forth the idea to her. I was satisfied to report my experience when comparing HDCD and non-HDCD between these two players, and though I was surprised and also a little upset at the differences you were the one unsatisfied that I found differences at all. So perhaps you should spend the time and resources to satisfy yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Further, "His mode of thinking has been popular since not too long after Cartesian physics was accepted as the sole truth in reality..." is hardly an accurate portrayal of science. It suggest that science simply stopped, sat back in a rocking chair, and said, "well that's the way the universe works folks. enjoy." Stop postulating about science if you've no intention of doing it.

And FWIW, all Shrodinger's Cat proved was that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to large things like cats, apples, and all that. It has definite areas of applications that don't extend to other things. Besides, the cat was a pussy. ;)
Oh, I see, another armchair scientist like CharlesJ. As your quotes demonstrate, you certainly know much about science. :rolleyes: I guess science is only important if it furthers your agenda, and the rest is garbage, which would explain why I see you and him in so many threads using what little science knowledge you have to bully people. Well at least you always have this forum and your anonymity so that you can wear a pretend labcoat. ;)

I don't see the point of continuing with this thread, as I have gotten what I wanted out of it already and it isn't going anywhere. See you in the next one. :cool:
post #191 of 203
Thread Starter 
I say "bully" BTW, because it is obvious that you are not hear out of the goodness of your hearts to bring the metaphorical "light" of knowledge to the masses... :p
post #192 of 203
You quote science without a desire to even conduct it. You simply postulate and then stop. Costs? Download test tones, spring for a $10 multimeter, and verify the FR at the speaker terminals. The result is that you'd get a good estimate if one of your players has an issue with FR. The time isn't all that much. You would need a friend though. As you stated, the only testing you did was unsighted, no level matching. Wow!

If you do the science and are fairly rigorous about it, the results are what the results are. The only agenda it furthers is truth and understanding. Since you're tired of it, PM an admin and close the f*cking thread.
post #193 of 203
Science is insufficient to explain reality. Reality being too complex and the often used simplified models are crude. Just try to do a three body problem in celestial mechanics. How can one expect a measurement alone to decide if a difference exists or not? The entire system: speakers, source, room acoustics, amplification, and yes even the INDIVIDUAL listeners response, ear brain and nerve cell interaction must be accurately measured and we cant do a lot that individualy much less in a dynamic setting with all things going on at the same time (the sum of each component measurement is different than a measurement of the system as a whole). When deciding between comparable components the best you can do is have a 'group' of test subjects agree on certain things X percent of the time so yes its a little like quantum mechanics. Its OK to say A sounds different/better than B to me with this gear in this place but its incorrect to say A IS better/different than B since it is a probability unless you manage to test everyone in the entire planet which would introduce time as a variable as well making things eveen more crazy.
post #194 of 203
An inherent 6 dB difference between two players due to HDCD is more than enough to obscure any fine differences. As to what it's due to, who knows? Could it be because the non-HDCD has a certain 'je ne sais quoi'? Maybe. Maybe not. A search will indicate that some embrace HDCD on HDCD devices. Other, such as Queue, don't. If you can't level the playing field somehow, you'll never know. I'm not taking issue with Queue's preference nor of other's opposite preferences in this particular scenario. I'm just saying there's far more going on that can't be nulled out.
post #195 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
An inherent 6 dB difference between two players due to HDCD is more than enough to obscure any fine differences. As to what it's due to, who knows? Could it be because the non-HDCD has a certain 'je ne sais quoi'? Maybe. Maybe not. A search will indicate that some embrace HDCD on HDCD devices. Other, such as Queue, don't. If you can't level the playing field somehow, you'll never know. I'm not taking issue with Queue's preference nor of other's opposite preferences in this particular scenario. I'm just saying there's far more going on that can't be nulled out.
IIRC, Reference Recordings had a sampler with tracks duplicated in HDCD, RedBook and one or the other with volume level compensation. It was intended to convince the listener of the value of HDCD. It might be a useful tool for this.

Kal
post #196 of 203
That would assume then that the differences between the two players was precisely 6 dB no?
post #197 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by apodaca
Science is insufficient to explain reality. Reality being too complex and the often used simplified models are crude. Just try to do a three body problem in celestial mechanics. How can one expect a measurement alone to decide if a difference exists or not? The entire system: speakers, source, room acoustics, amplification, and yes even the INDIVIDUAL listeners response, ear brain and nerve cell interaction must be accurately measured and we cant do a lot that individualy much less in a dynamic setting with all things going on at the same time (the sum of each component measurement is different than a measurement of the system as a whole). When deciding between comparable components the best you can do is have a 'group' of test subjects agree on certain things X percent of the time so yes its a little like quantum mechanics. Its OK to say A sounds different/better than B to me with this gear in this place but its incorrect to say A IS better/different than B since it is a probability unless you manage to test everyone in the entire planet which would introduce time as a variable as well making things eveen more crazy.
I think "science" is what has given us "all these wonderful toys". It seems like you are starting with a premise that is often used by audiophiles that want to use subjective and anedotal evidence as being more powerful than repeatable tests. In other words, the old science doesn't know everything so what I say and describe is better.
post #198 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
That would assume then that the differences between the two players was precisely 6 dB no?
Yup but that's OK since if the two are balanced with a standard CD, the difference with HDCD will be 6dB. When HDCD was a hot new thing, many of us modified our DACs to defeat the 6dB bump.

Kal
post #199 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
... because it is obvious that you are not hear out of the goodness of your hearts to bring the metaphorical "light" of knowledge to the masses... :p

Well, the 'masses' are not here so you are correct perhaps.
post #200 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
(I can't quite follow what this has to do with quantum mechanics, but, at any rate, I concede the point.)

It looked good to those who are easily impressed :D
post #201 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson
IIRC, Reference Recordings had a sampler with tracks duplicated in HDCD, RedBook and one or the other with volume level compensation. It was intended to convince the listener of the value of HDCD. It might be a useful tool for this.Kal
Aha! Found it. RR's HDCD Sampler Volume 2 includes 2 pairs of 2 selections in which one is HDCD and the other not. They explicitely state: t "The level advantage of the HDCD process was deliberately not used on tracks 11 and 13 to allow easier comparison with tracks 10 and 12." RR-905CD.

Kal
post #202 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by apodaca
Science is insufficient to explain reality. Reality being too complex and the often used simplified models are crude. Just try to do a three body problem in celestial mechanics. How can one expect a measurement alone to decide if a difference exists or not? The entire system: speakers, source, room acoustics, amplification, and yes even the INDIVIDUAL listeners response, ear brain and nerve cell interaction must be accurately measured and we cant do a lot that individualy much less in a dynamic setting with all things going on at the same time (the sum of each component measurement is different than a measurement of the system as a whole). When deciding between comparable components the best you can do is have a 'group' of test subjects agree on certain things X percent of the time so yes its a little like quantum mechanics. Its OK to say A sounds different/better than B to me with this gear in this place but its incorrect to say A IS better/different than B since it is a probability unless you manage to test everyone in the entire planet which would introduce time as a variable as well making things eveen more crazy.

Hmmm....

At what point would you say the probability of some thing being the case fairly represents the reality of some thing being the case?
post #203 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by apodaca
Science is insufficient to explain reality. Reality being too complex and the often used simplified models are crude. Just try to do a three body problem in celestial mechanics. How can one expect a measurement alone to decide if a difference exists or not? The entire system: speakers, source, room acoustics, amplification, and yes even the INDIVIDUAL listeners response, ear brain and nerve cell interaction must be accurately measured and we cant do a lot that individualy much less in a dynamic setting with all things going on at the same time (the sum of each component measurement is different than a measurement of the system as a whole). When deciding between comparable components the best you can do is have a 'group' of test subjects agree on certain things X percent of the time so yes its a little like quantum mechanics. Its OK to say A sounds different/better than B to me with this gear in this place but its incorrect to say A IS better/different than B since it is a probability unless you manage to test everyone in the entire planet which would introduce time as a variable as well making things eveen more crazy.

Perhaps a bit of reading the audio and acoustic literature might be insightful for you and set you straight on this?
JNDs are measured for various events. No, you don't need precise measurements of any of the areas you suggest. Just straw man insertions.

A level matched DBT is more than sufficient to find out audible differences between two components. Oh, only one component is swapped in the system.
If that alters system response after level matching, you may win the prise. But, many have tried, very few have won and then for well known reasons.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Noticable Difference in Sound