cliveb wrote: > Wow, I had no idea that relating my little experience would stir up such > a sh*tstorm of vitriol. > > I agree that the "test" I performed could never be described as > scientifically valid. But can we apply a little common sense here, > please? > > 1. During a sighted comparison, I heard a difference between two DACs. > 2. During a casual single-blind comparison (when I didn't know which DAC > was playing), I failed to detect that previously-heard difference. > > It seems that jkeny is saying that my casual single-blind test has no > validity at all. All I can say is that it strikes me as having somewhat > more validity than a fully sighted test. It says to me that what I > personally hear is influenced by knowledge of what device is playing. > And my understanding is that decades of psychological research has > discovered that the same applies to most people (ie. that I'm not a > freak in this respect). > > jkeny: you're not seriously suggesting that a proper DBT would show that > those differences heard in (1) above would magically reappear, surely? > If not, what's your beef? > > The audiophile at home is in no position to conduct a scientifically > valid DBT. So does this mean he should not make any attempt whatsoever > to try and eliminate non-auditory cues when comparing equipment?
Hi Clive, I'm glad you asked this question - I wasn't getting at you specifically, as I believe that we are all fooled by the apparent simplicity of blind listening & I'm sure we could all do with realising some aspects about casual blind listening that are of importance. The reason I replied to your post with my remark about a proper blind test was because what I see going on in this thread is the usual biased approach by certain crusaders who forensically dissect every anecdote where a difference between DACs is reported & yet allow through unquestioningly anecdotes such as yours that report no difference heard. >From your post I gleaned that you perceived a more "detailed presentation" in one DAC Vs another. The reality of psychoacoustics is, that we can only focus on some small number of aspects in the sound at any one time. In blind listening we tend towards focussed listening (see below example). If we haven't already narrowed down our sighted listening impressions into a much more specific & easily identifiable audible differences, then we are presenting ourselves with a huge challenge in doing a blind A/B test & the odds are very much stacked towards doing no better than random guessing in a blind test. That is why trained experts are used in blind tests - because they have the experience to analyse & isolate such nebulous differences as "detailed presentation" into some more specific component that can be more easily focussed on in A/B listening. So, in answer to your question *"jkeny: you're not seriously suggesting that a proper DBT would show that those differences heard in (1) above would magically reappear, surely? If not, what's your beef?"* - the answer is that it requires some effort & some training in order to be able to pick out the specific differences & to be able to retain focus during blind A/B listening. Not putting in this necessary effort is more than likely to return a null result To illustrate what I'm talking about - here's a recording engineer's experience of blind A/B testing where he can only differentiate two samples by listening to sound stage differences. It's a thread from Gearslutz 2013 _*_Foobar_2000_ABX_Test_-_Redbook_vs_192/24 (\"https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/850044-foobar-2000-abx-test-redbook-vs-192-24-a.html\";) *_ And some excerpts from his posts to illustrate what I'm talking about > -"Keeping my attention focused for a proper aural listening posture is > brutal. It is VERY easy to drift into listening for frequency > domains--which is usually the most productive approach when recording > and mixing. Instead I try to focus on depth of the soundstage, the sound > picture I think I can hear. The more 3D it seems, the better. "- > -"I tried to listen for soundstage depth and accurate detail. It took a > lot of training repetitions, and remains a holistic impression, not any > single feature I can easily point to. It seems to me that the 192 files > have the aural analogue of better focus. To train, I would try to hear > *precisely* where in front of me particular sound features were located, > in two dimensions: left-to-right, and closer-to-further away--the foobar > tool would then allow me to match up which two were easier to precisely > locate. I know it muddies the waters, but I also had a very holistic > impression of sound (uhhhhhh) 'texture'??--in which the 192 file was > smoother/silkier/richer. The 192 is easier on the ears (just slightly) > over time; with good sound reproduction through quality headphones (DT > 770) through quality interface (RME Babyface) I can listen for quite a > while without ear fatigue, even on material that would normally be > considered pretty harsh (capsule's 'Starry Sky', for example), and which > *does* wear me out over time when heard via Redbook audio."- > -"Practice improves performance. To reach 99.8% statistical reliability, > and to do so more quickly (this new one was done in about 1/3 the time > required for the trials listed above in the thread), I mainly have to > train my concentration. - > > -It is *very* easy to get off on a tangent, listening for a certain > brightness or darkness, for the timbre balance in one part, several > parts, or all--this immediately introduces errors, even though this type > of listening is much more likely to be what I am and need to be doing > when recording and mixing a new track. - > > -Once I am able to repeatedly focus just on spatial focus/accuracy--4 > times in a row, for X & Y, and A & B--then I can hit the target. Get > lazy even one time, miss the target."- > -It took me a **lot** of training. I listened for a dozen wrong things > before I settled on the aspects below.- > > -I try to visualize the point source of every single instrument in the > mix--that's why I picked a complex mix for this trial. I pinpoint > precisely where each instrument is, and especially its distance from the > listener. Problem is, both versions already have *some* spatial depth > and placement, it's only a matter of deciding which one is deeper, and > more precise. I've tried making determinations off of a particular part, > like a guitar vamp or hi-hat pattern, but can't get above about 2/3 > correct that way. - > -The better approach is just to ask myself which version is easier to > precisely visualize, as a holistic judgment of all the pieces together. > Equally effective, or rather equally contributing to the choice, is > asking which version holistically gives me a sense of a physically > larger soundstage, especially in the dimension extending directly away > from me--thus the idea of listening to reverb characteristics. - > -Having to listen to four playbacks (A/B, X/Y, for one choice) gives > rise to the problem of desensitization. Neurons naturally give decreased > response to repetitions, so I've found I can target my answer more > easily if I pause 5-10 seconds between an A/B (or an X/Y). Otherwise, > A/B is always easier than X/Y. - > -I have rather junky monitors, KRK Rokit 6's, so I'm kind of surprised I > can get a result out of them. To get down into low single digits I > shifted to my headphones pushed by a nice Schiit Asgard2 amp, which I > just acquired--if your headphones are good, I'd recommend using them for > the testing. This is more for isolation than anything else.- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103776 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
