ncarver;574373 Wrote: > I didn't mean to take it to that extreme, just that there are fields > like psychology where most knowledge has resulted solely from human > observation until fairly recently. I guess some of the people on here > would say that because human observation was involved there was simply > no point in pursuing these fields at all or that we should not believe > a single accepted idea from those fields now. :) > > Anyway, this could go on and on, but just let me finish this by > describing the results of my latest subjective listening tests. I > recently got a Touch and then bought a new DAC, and I did this to a > large extent to be able to play 96/24 material. So now I have been > conducting listening tests with 96/24 and 44/16 versions of some > tracks. So let's go over my supposed biases: (1) bought Touch and DAC > specifically to be able to play hi-res material; (2) hi-res material is > much "better" than CD quality with larger word size and sampling rate; > (3) hi-res material is more expensive; (4) I want my system to be able > to resolve the differences that must exist; (5) I want my ears to be > able to hear these differences. Geez! That is quite a list of reasons > for me to be biased to hear differences. Looks like pretty much a slam > dunk if you are to believe people like Dan, with his loony audiophile > straw man. And yet...I do not reliably hear a difference in sound > quality that I can ascribe to the hi-res tracks. Wait, what??? How on > earth could I have reached that conclusion with so very many factors > biasing me to conclude the opposite???? How indeed!
Well human bias is nor reliable not predicable by you or me or otherwise we could side step it easily ;) that is if you new what your bias really was it would not be a bias, it's a blind spot in some parts. so for this time in this test you got this result . And obvious things, If I chop of my leg I don't have to do an abx test to reliable observe that it's gone, that is the signal is greater than the "noise". I do absolutely think that reality exists, but it can not be directly observed by us, we can gain knowledge by using scientific methods that ofcourse includes human subjektive observations (there are no other) , but we must take care to not fool ourselves or others . We all live in our private version of the world interpreted by our senses and ilusions , so it's not at all mysterious to see and hear things that do not exist or remember things completely wrong. Or even remember things that never had occurred or existed. You actually did more work than you think in that regard, you chosed to test something, that we know is different and it does influence the signal coming out of your system. the 16/44.1 signal IS different than the 24/96 signal and DAC's do measure better with 24/96 conditions noise is lower etc. So you tested something that is verified by countless reliable measurements by others. So we already know that there is a difference . You wanted to to try to hear that difference for ourself. Like all of us home user your final listening-test was less rigorous, but hey it's a hobby. You did not try to do something that defies the laws of physics there is no "cargo cult science" here . So you know how to partly exclude the improbable . You did not try to hang a paperclip in a curtain (ala peter belt) . I have done this unscientific test myself and heard a subtle difference in favor of 24/96 . But knowing that 24/96 actually is better (let's forget the argument of forged 24/96 files for now) I go with it :) Cables are a can of worms in that that they obvuisly are in the signal path. And ofcourse have an measurable impact on the signal, All measuring in "normal" systems shows that the difference is very small lower than all known thresholds of human hearing. AND controlled listening tests= subjektive but with the power of double blinding and statistics, seems to conclude that this is the case . So the "normal" 1m signal cable case is "done" by now. It boils down the old argument that any controlled test is flawed and destroys some unknown subtlety. Because most wild claims in audiophilia do disappear when a scientific test is done, that is not accepted by some . I'm no know it all , so all test methods have limitations and flaws and I'm not up to speed at exactly what they are in this case. And proponents of "cargo cult science" would again like to introduce the much bigger problem solved by for example ABX , that I don't get. Same problem that creationist have . They replace the mystery of initial evolution with the much bigger mystery where the f**k did god come from, but they refuse to see it that way. This is common to much wider field of pseudo science like homeopathy and other junk science's. Homeopathy can be debunked with it's own methods. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/belgium_skeptics_commit_mass_suicide/ I do like the audio diffmaker software it solves so many problems in testing audio. It is superior to almost all regimes of testing in that it can record two signals and compare them and even listen to the difference. If the diff is very low eg -100dB then you already know that it is undetectable during normal circumstances and if the residue signal sounds like noise only then there is no difference at all really. So this method has both measurements and listening involved and focus on the difference if it exist very neat. sadly my crappy PC soundcard don't support it. What a load of "crap" i wrote sorry for always babbling I would not be offended if 10% of the fora have me on the ignore list :-/ a final thought from me in this tread (it is now exhausted) . Is it really normal to use megadollar $$$ interconects and speaker cables to SET triode amps and similar ilk, that exhibits problems 100000 times greater than any "normal" cable can ever do to a signal AND claiming to hear a difference ?? this is in the real of the improbable. Or the combo of 24/96 hirez and tubes , just drown that delicate signal in noise while at it ? it is great to have these debates hopefully no one is undeservingly offended. -- Mnyb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 and assorted amps SiriuS, Classe' Primare and Dynadio speakers, Contour 4 Contour Center, and Contour 1.3SE for the rear ch. Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: SB3 + powered Fostex PM0.4 Miscellaneous use: Radio (with battery) I use a Controller various ir-remotes and a Eee-PC with squeezeplay to control this ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81616 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
