opaqueice, your piece gets to the heart of the matter.
Blind testing is important when it is necessary to remove as much
subjective bias as possible from an evaluation. It is very important
for those doing basic research and also many of those who are designing
equipment or testing new ideas.
magiccarpetride;582342 Wrote:
> I've always been skeptical about the validity of the ABX testing,
> including the double-blind tests.
"It has been said that ABX is the worst form of audio testing except
all the others that have been tried."
(With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill)
Jean
--
bluegaspode;582379 Wrote:
> Maybe we should just change our attitude.
> A song that cannot get us into musical nirvana on any equipment is just
> not good enough.
>
> I remember times when I walked down the streets with lousy earphones
> and started forgetting the world around me.
>
> Is really
magiccarpetride;582333 Wrote:
> It is my strongly biased opinion that scientists and engineers are the
> kind of people who lack certain finesse. Sue me.
Well I obviously don't agree :D.
Anyway they are the ones designing audio gear and developing new
technologies for it, so their collective
Robin Bowes;582388 Wrote:
> On 12/10/10 20:54, magiccarpetride wrote:
> >
> > Robin Bowes;582344 Wrote:
> >> I disagree that there is "nothing measurable about it"; there is
> >> actually a lot about sound and audio reproduction that is
> measurable.
> >> However, I don't believe measurement is
MBlue72;582396 Wrote:
> ... and all I asked was whether next to buy a Touch or a DAC.
>
> Dave
>
> PS ... I'm leaning toward the DAC.
Yeah, I was just thinking about that, myself. As the o/p, I had to
wonder whether or not you actually got any guidance that you found
useful. Between this th
... and all I asked was whether next to buy a Touch or a DAC.
Dave
PS ... I'm leaning toward the DAC.
--
MBlue72
MBlue72's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13779
View this thread: http://forums.s
aubuti;582381 Wrote:
> ...though the ABX tests for lovemaking can get a lot more complicated,
> especially double-blind
Not to mention potentially much more fatiguing...
--
magiccarpetride
magiccarpetride's Profile:
On 12/10/10 20:54, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> Robin Bowes;582344 Wrote:
>> I disagree that there is "nothing measurable about it"; there is
>> actually a lot about sound and audio reproduction that is measurable.
>> However, I don't believe measurement is everything. I agree with the
>> rest of w
On 12/10/10 20:50, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> Robin Bowes;582344 Wrote:
>> You can't lump "music" and audio reproduction together. Music is indeed
>> an art form, that we all enjoy. However, hudio reproduction is an
>> engineering discipline, based largely on science.
>
> I don't see how are the
magiccarpetride;582373 Wrote:
> Listening to music is like making love. You have to be in the mood.
> Otherwise you leave disappointed.
...though the ABX tests for lovemaking can get a lot more complicated,
especially double-blind
--
aubuti
-
Maybe we should just change our attitude.
A song that cannot get us into musical nirvana on any equipment is just
not good enough.
I remember times when I walked down the streets with lousy earphones
and started forgetting the world around me.
Is really this last bit of equipment the dominating
bluegaspode;582370 Wrote:
> We should also not forget that getting you in the special mood is the
> last 1% that equipment can achieve (and I also think that the weather
> outside and what you did the last hour has far more influence on
> getting into this mood than your equipment - if it's above
We should also not forget that getting you in the special mood is the
last 1% that equipment can achieve (and I also think that the weather
outside and what you did the last hour has far more influence on
getting into this mood than your equipment - if it's above a certain
level).
But most of the
Fair point, but no one said the tests all have to be done in the same
sitting, or even the same day. Or for that matter, with the same piece
of music. In fact, that would be a really bad way to do ABX testing. A
better way would be one that takes into account the different types of
music one liste
Robin Bowes;582344 Wrote:
> I disagree that there is "nothing measurable about it"; there is
> actually a lot about sound and audio reproduction that is measurable.
> However, I don't believe measurement is everything. I agree with the
> rest of what you say here.
>
> R.
>
> --
> "Feed that eg
Robin Bowes;582344 Wrote:
> You can't lump "music" and audio reproduction together. Music is indeed
> an art form, that we all enjoy. However, hudio reproduction is an
> engineering discipline, based largely on science.
I don't see how are they different? Couldn't you equally well say that
music
Robin Bowes;582339 Wrote:
> Don't people get upset when someone doesn't agree with them? :)
>
> R.
>
We all do, it's natural. But some people then manage to get over
themselves and make the next step -- is there anything to be learned
from this disagreement?
--
magiccarpetride
-
Phil Leigh;582336 Wrote:
> I agree with this, but it appeared that you were also trying to
> establish that there is some fundamental flaw in (good) digital. All I
> can say is that analogue has different flaws. They are still flaws. All
> reproduction methods are flawed.
>
> You happen to prefe
aubuti;582349 Wrote:
> That's one reason why real ABX tests do lots of replications. You should
> never trust any test with N=1 or N=2.
>
> Repeat the tests a lot of times, and if that musical nirvana occurs
> "predominantly" (for which there are precise statistical definitions)
> with one syst
magiccarpetride;582342 Wrote:
> In conclusion: if I can't even consistently repeat two consecutive
> moments in a reliable fashion, what gives me the arrogance to
> think/believe that I'll be able to reliably achieve a conclusive test
> when changing some links in my audio chain?
That's one reaso
On 12/10/10 19:48, magiccarpetride wrote:
I have similar misgivings for similar reasons.
I am aware of the influence of the psychological aspects of listening to
music which makes it important to eliminate them as much as possible
when trying to perform comparatative tests. However, I'm not con
I'm pretty sure the Pandora stream is 128kbps. Pandora's premium service
streams at 192kbps, but that is not yet available (and may never be) on
SB players. You get the same 128 whether you listen via mysb.com or
SBS.
I can't answer your question about upsampling because I've never tried
it, but
On 12/10/10 19:13, magiccarpetride wrote:
>
> Kal Rubinson;582218 Wrote:
>> You can fling as many analogies as you like; they prove nothing. You
>> like that "kind" of sound and that's OK.
>
> I'm not trying to prove anything. Music and the art of sound is not
> science, so there's nothing to p
I've always been skeptical about the validity of the ABX testing,
including the double-blind tests. I will try to briefly discuss one
aspect of testing that makes me uneasy about the whole arrangement.
It often happens that, while listening to the playback on my system, I
experience moments of he
Wombat;582341 Wrote:
> Not exactly. Many HDCDs just decode to 17bits of audio. Some even to
> 17bits but at a peak level below -6dB so they are 16bit technically.
> Some use a few bits mor only in some places and very few ones seem to
> use more bits all the time.
> Being HDCD sometimes only mea
adamdea;582335 Wrote:
> Almost all Linn recordings are downloadable HDcd coded at a much lower
> price than the 24 bit files. Ditto reference recordings on HDtracks.
Not exactly. Many HDCDs just decode to 17bits of audio. Some even to
17bits but at a peak level below -6dB so they are 16bit techn
adamdea;582335 Wrote:
> Honestly Phil, I just like to understand things. It may amuse you to
> know that i have been quizzing a mathematician friend of mine who knows
> quite a lot about information theory (but not audio) about the effect of
> noise on digital information. He ended saying- "now t
On 12/10/10 19:14, magiccarpetride wrote:
> It is my strongly biased opinion that scientists and engineers are the
> kind of people who lack certain finesse. Sue me.
And:
On 12/10/10 09:18, Gazjam wrote:
> I've noticed your one for sweeping generalisations, quoting "in your
> experience" as a way
magiccarpetride;582334 Wrote:
> ... Why not look more closely at what's going on? Not everything in life
> is measurable, especially when we're talking about such subtle things as
> the art of sound.
I agree with this, but it appeared that you were also trying to
establish that there is some fun
Phil Leigh;582320 Wrote:
> Just to recap - quantization noise is an error in the lowest 1/2 bit
> (remember it's a "rounding error")and so is very tiny in a 16-bit
> scenario where the signal level of the recording is at minimum -40 to
> -50dB. You still seem to be searching for something that is
Phil Leigh;582188 Wrote:
> Yeah - thanks for that sweeping generalization coupled with personal
> insult - I always love a constructive debate.
>
> Enjoy your (hideously overpriced and often unexceptional) artesan
> loaf/vinyl.
>
> Don't presume to know me. Breadmakers can make perfectly fine d
opaqueice;582302 Wrote:
> You'll find many others that share my view, on this forum and elsewhere.
> In fact my hunch is that scientists and engineers that work in fields
> related to audio would be pretty much unanimous in agreeing with me on
> this (with the obvious exception of some of those t
Kal Rubinson;582218 Wrote:
> You can fling as many analogies as you like; they prove nothing. You
> like that "kind" of sound and that's OK.
I'm not trying to prove anything. Music and the art of sound is not
science, so there's nothing to prove. It's merely an art form, devised
for our enjoyme
Gazjam;582197 Wrote:
> Magiccarpetride..
> c'mon relax man.
>
> dont try to change peoples opinions...waste of time.
> casting yourself in a bad light here buddy..
It's by design. I'm not trying to change peoples' opinions, just trying
to get them to open up to a lively debate. No harm intended
JKlein;582307 Wrote:
> I am new here, but have already examined a lot on this forum. I
> recognize the returning names like e.g. Phil Leigh, JohnSwenson and
> Soundcheck by now. Very educative and I am grateful for the efforts
> they and others put in helping and teaching.
>
> I want to share so
adamdea;582298 Wrote:
> Dear John
> It is a great privilege to have you post a reply on this thread (even
> if not to me!). I wondered if i could try you patience by asking a
> couple of questions
>
> I. I wonder if you could express a view as to what the cut off
> threshold for resolution (as y
adamdea;582294 Wrote:
> Thanks. This is very helpful too.
> I am afraid that having got my tiny mind a little way into this problem
> a couple of weeks ago, I then got too distracted by the tedious business
> of earning a living etc to pose the next incisive question which I have
> now forgotten
I am new here, but have already examined a lot on this forum. I
recognize the returning names like e.g. Phil Leigh, JohnSwenson and
Soundcheck by now. Very educative and I am grateful for the efforts
they and others put in helping and teaching.
I want to share some subjectives. I bought the Squee
opaqueice;582302 Wrote:
> You'll find many others that share my view, on this forum and elsewhere.
> In fact my hunch is that scientists and engineers that work in fields
> related to audio would be pretty much unanimous in agreeing with me on
> this (with the obvious exception of some of those t
Gazjam;582290 Wrote:
> [b]I said what I said as your observations about sound quality betwen
> Dacs seem to make no sense whatsoever, sorry but thats how it reads.
You'll find many others that share my view. In fact my hunch is that
scientists and engineers that work in fields related to audio
I listen a great deal to Pandora through my Transporter via
Mysqueezebox.com
Does anyone know what sample rate this is, I'm also curious if it is
different than listening via the squeezebox server?
Also if anyone tried upsampling this stream, what did you think of the
results? what equipment were
Stereoeditor;580202 Wrote:
> You can find this graph at
> http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/cary_audio_design_classic_cd_303t_professional_sacd_player/index5.html
> .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
Dear John
It is a great privilege to have you post a reply on this thread (even
if not
cliveb;579311 Wrote:
> Excuse me for coming in a bit late but I wanted to comment on this.
>
> "Resolution" and "precision" are two sides of the same coin. Here's an
> analogy. Take a 12" ruler - what is the smallest sized object you can
> confidently measure the size of? That's the resolution o
Gazjam;582283 Wrote:
> Please, enough with this bullshit.
>
> http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
>
> its to do with evidence of paranormal activity - not hifi cables.
> get a grip
> ffs.http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/97-swift-october-12-2007.html
--
Henry6
opaqueice;582250 Wrote:
> You asked: "They sounded exactly the same to you I take it?"
> I replied: "...playing music while functioning properly, yes, they all
> sound identical."
>
> How do you get from that me speaking for anyone else? I'm answering
> your question, which was specifically
Typically at this point in these type discussions, when they
disintegrate into name calling and repeats of the same argument over
and over, someone mentions the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
mercifully bringing an end to the thread. ;-)
--
garym
---
opaqueice;582211 Wrote:
> Well, to my knowledge no one has ever succeeded in hearing differences
> between cables in a controlled level-matched blind test. *If you can
> do it, you might be able to win $1,000,000 from the James Randi
> foundation (I'm not kidding)*.
>
Please, enough with thi
opaqueice;582211 Wrote:
>
> Do you recall if you level matched when you did your testing? If not
> that could easily account for the differences - if the resistance of
> the cable was enough to change the volume by a dB or so, it's well
> known that this will strongly influence the results (for
ncarver;582230 Wrote:
> And to my knowledge no one has ever conducted a blind test of cables
> where negative results meant anything beyond that test. I would be
> very interested for you to provide citations for a set of serious tests
> that have been done with cables so that I could evaluate t
Gazjam;582245 Wrote:
> Sorry, but after reading that and some other posts elsewhere I call
> bullshit.
>
> Knock yourself out buddy, but as we all hear diffrently and our brains
> work differently nobody can come on and speak for anyone else other
> than themselves.
You asked: "They sounded ex
opaqueice;582200 Wrote:
> Actually not quite. The boutique DAC (which I still have by the way -
> anyone want to buy it? :D) distorted audibly on certain high volume
> passages when connected to a particular amp I used to have. Impedance
> mismatch, I assume (actually I'm fairly sure, I did som
52 matches
Mail list logo
