jeffmeh;373372 Wrote:
I would suggest that if they don't find any, then it shows that the
differences are not audible for that sample group. If they do find
some, then it shows that the differences are audible. If no one has
ever found any, then it is very likely, though not certain, that
gw43;373393 Wrote:
I was just speculating that maybe others had come to a similar
conclusion
There are, indeed, some people who come to your conclusion.
But all people I know (including me) find a Beresford dac is way ahead
the stock SB3 dac in terms of perceived sound quality.
--
Themis
Themis;373406 Wrote:
My opinion is that if a group (or several groups) can't find the
difference, the following thing happens :
Hypothesis 1: The difference is audible
The difference must affect at least an equal statistical percentage of
any possible audio sound, as the one we need to
ar-t;373244 Wrote:
Ok, back to your premise about cognitive psychology.
When I did the fake preamp test, and they gave me that
deer-in-the-headlight lookI can't hear any
difference...was I supposed to..did I screw up...?, I then
moved on the next aspect of sorting out
I understand the tests, don't worry. ;)
But the way the tests are made is only valid if (and only if) the
differences are equally distributed along the examined samples. In
other words, it is valid only if we know in advance which are these
differences, and where to find them.
Unfortunately,
opaqueice;373412 Wrote:
One thing that helps a lot is training - for example it's MUCH easier
to hear differences between MP3s once you know what the artifacts sound
like, and which kinds of musical passages they're most clear on. I've
read that Revel actually does this - they have a
Themis;373413 Wrote:
I understand the tests, don't worry. ;)
You say so, but then you say...
But the way the tests are made is only valid if (and only if) the
differences are equally distributed along the examined samples.
which is completely wrong.
With sufficient statistics, these tests
opaqueice;373432 Wrote:
With sufficient statistics, these tests will find -any- ability to
discern differences, no matter how small or uneven, even if the
experimenter is too rigid or dumb to adapt the test to focus on the
interesting cases. For example even if 9 out of 10 pairs of
I got my Squeezebox v3 yesterday. It's perfect (except it doesn't handle
96khz).
I have also heard very short pops or bursts of hard noise for 2/10
of a second in the right channel only. This has occurred 3 times now,
out of 4-5 hours of playback. The buffer is not near empty when it
happens and
Now wait a minute. I, for one, do not like the Burr-Brown converters,
which I find too loud and bright for my taste. On the other hand the
Cirrus Logic converters are very smooth. What's more, the Slimp3
display is not as technically performant as the SB3's, but if you like
the retro design, it's
Let me pose a question. But first a story!
Once there were two coffee machine firms called Caffefile and Cafmart.
The Caffefile 200 was top of the range, made of premium parts and
designed by coffee lovers, for coffee lovers. The Cafmart Express was
an overall similar design, built using sound
Themis;373434 Wrote:
You don't get the point. What you call with sufficient statistics will
always remain below the confidence point.
If -say- there can only be 0.01% samples which can be different,
whatever the number of samples examined, it won't change this
percentage: there will only be
darrenyeats wrote:
The test was carried out over a period of weeks and the result was that
the coffee lovers as a whole identified the origin correctly for 200
cups out of 400.
My question is, what conclusions would you draw from the test?
Darren
One rejects the hypotheses that the test
darrenyeats;373511 Wrote:
Let me pose a question. But first a story!
Once there were two coffee machine firms called Caffefile and
Cafmart...
I fail to see an analogy here. This 'case' deals with the preferences
in tastes, while HiFi deals with the resemblance to the original. In
coffee
darrenyeats;373511 Wrote:
The test was carried out over a period of weeks and the result was that
the coffee lovers as a whole identified the origin correctly for 200
cups out of 400.
My question is, what conclusions would you draw from the test?
Darren
The conclusion is the following
Themis wrote:
The conclusion is the following : 50% of the time the quality between
the two machines is the same and 50% of the time it is different.
No, the results show exactly what you would expect if folks guessed. It
shows nothing causal.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
pfarrell;373581 Wrote:
Themis wrote:
The conclusion is the following : 50% of the time the quality between
the two machines is the same and 50% of the time it is different.
No, the results show exactly what you would expect if folks guessed. It
shows nothing causal.
--
Pat
Themis wrote:
I don't think so. Your assumptions would be true if *actually* the
coffee was different 100% of the time...
But the test doesn't claim this. So, if the coffee prepared by the two
machines was different 50% of the time, the conclusion is that the
audience succeded at 100% of the
Themis;373587 Wrote:
I don't think so. Your assumptions would be true if *actually* the
coffee was different 100% of the time...
But the test doesn't claim this. So, if the coffee prepared by the two
machines was different 50% of the time, the conclusion is that the
audience succeded at
opaqueice;373594 Wrote:
You need to sit down and think this through - you're very confused about
it.
If the coffee was better from Caffefile 50% of the time and the same
50% of the time, and the audience picked randomly when it was the same
(as they would have to since it was the same!)
I haven't used many DACs, but I can tell you that my Channel Islands
DVA-2 with the optional VAC-1 Power Supply makes my SB3 sound as good
as my upgraded Rotel RCD-1070. (This is one of the reasons I sold off
my Transporter- perhaps it was overkill for my system).
--
kphinney
SB3 (x2) and
More seriously : there are too many unknown variables in the test. The
200 correctly identified samples don't tell us anything. But not
because they are 50% of the samples: they tell us nothing simply
because there are too many variables.
We need more scientific data to validate a test.
- We
Hearing and tasting is two intirely different things therefor the test
is of no use in this case.
Hearing is like seeing , its ALWASY a combination with the state of
mind (basic psykology).
Tasting is different , its not influenced by the mind.
And thats also why the hearing sence and
harmonic wrote:
Tasting is different , its not influenced by the mind.
What bull. Dinner with a great looking date, a glass of wine, in a great
restaurant tastes better than the same food home alone.
Let alone the minor facts that smell makes up most of the sensory input
of 'taste
--
Pat
I just dug up another DAC comparison here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/DAC-Processors/C-I-Audio/VDA-2/digital/126982.html
This guy seems to think highly of the VDA-2 also and has a larger shelf
of DACs to compare with.
--
kphinney
SB3 (x2) and Transporter
Rotel RCD-1070
CIAudio VDA-2
Themis;373611 Wrote:
You need to sit down and think this through - you're very confused about
it.
Themis, part of what I do is teach statistics to Ph.D. students.
So, lets say the following:
50% of the time the coffee is the same.
50% of the time it is not the same, but half of this
Themis;373611 Wrote:
So, lets say the following:
50% of the time the coffee is the same.
50% of the time it is not the same, but half of this time (25% of
total), the CafMart makes a better coffee.
The audience identifies with 100% confidence the better samples.
There is no earthly
thanks for the recommendation on CI VDA-2 DAC, that's what i am looking
for DAC which can deliver a musical, warm, 'analog' soundstage. I will
study and explore further as i am not hurry to get it right now.
--
auronthas
Auronthas
Tajima Power Conditioner #61614; Squeezebox 3 / Cambridge
darrenyeats;373663 Wrote:
There is no earthly reason to believe the coffee machines do not perform
consistently. It would be easy to do technical chemical tests on many
cups to verify they perform consistently.
But... So, you think that neither the Caffefile 200 nor the Cafmart
Express
pfarrell;373626 Wrote:
harmonic wrote:
Tasting is different , its not influenced by the mind.
What bull. Dinner with a great looking date, a glass of wine, in a
great
restaurant tastes better than the same food home alone.
Let alone the minor facts that smell makes up most of the
Being an avid coffee drinker, let me throw in the following variables.
1. Are the temperatures of the boiler the same?
2. Are the shots pulled after temperatures have stabilised or pulled
between heatup of the water in the boiler
3. External variable - The consistency of the grinder. Different
Here is what I use: http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html
Balanced in, clean, low noise floor, powerful enough to drive just
about any speaker.
--
Timothy Stockman
Timothy Stockman's Profile:
Goodsounds;362630 Wrote:
I think this is a great series. I've bought several over the years and
have enjoyed them. I'd bet it's been successful beyond anyone's
imagination. It has always struck me as aimed more toward female
buyers than male. Is that reasonable (do you know?), or way off
jhelmus;362590 Wrote:
I actually work for the company that produces the For Dummies
series..
However maybe I will try again.
Larger Image
WindowsXP Digital Music For Dummies
Ryan Williams
ISBN: 978-0-7645-7599-0
Paperback
308 pages
November 2004
US $21.99 Add to Cart
--
th00ht
Martin43;373479 Wrote:
I got my Squeezebox v3 yesterday. It's perfect (except it doesn't handle
96khz).
I suspect there might be some kind of bug in the Squeezebox firmware.It can
handle 96kHz... but not out of the box... there's a thread
elsewhere on how to do this...
I've never
darrenyeats;373511 Wrote:
The test was carried out over a period of weeks and the result was that
the coffee lovers as a whole identified the origin correctly for 200
cups out of 400.
My question is, what conclusions would you draw from the test?
Darren
Student: I like Coffeemaker A
jeffmeh wrote:
Student: Then I suppose that I really cannot tell the difference.
Master: Exactly.
Which does not prove that no grasshopper can tell the difference, just
this one. If you used 400 Kung Fu students, instead of one, you would
conclude that as a group, they guessed. But that
more coffee=more jitter is the only thing I'm getting from this story.;)
--
konut
konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596
View this thread:
pfarrell;373730 Wrote:
jeffmeh wrote:
Student: Then I suppose that I really cannot tell the difference.
Master: Exactly.
Which does not prove that no grasshopper can tell the difference, just
this one. If you used 400 Kung Fu students, instead of one, you would
conclude that as a
39 matches
Mail list logo
