Julf wrote:
Absolutely. I was about to make that point too. This discussion started
from the premise that two pieces of gear that measure the same sound the
same, and that is largely true, and we should not underestimate the
psychological factors that make a $50 000 amp that looks like it
doctor_big wrote:
I completely disagree. Abx is good for determining if a subject can
identify X.
Just not sure why that would be useful information. If you can identify
X, it means you can tell a difference between A and B.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Julf wrote:
Just not sure why that would be useful information. If you can identify
X, it means you can tell a difference between A and B.
ABX in the context of audio gear tests the subject not the equipment.
It's confusing and confounding.
We've already established that ABX can't reveal
Have there been instances of two different amps that measure the same
being reliably shown as sounding different via ABX?
Jason
doctor_big's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15196
View this
ralphpnj wrote:
edit: You can trust what i'm saying since, as you can plainly see for my
avatar, i have a golden ear.
lmao! :d:d:d:d
johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10177
View this
Julf wrote:
Doing a diff is an excellent too for verifying if a piece of waveform
in, waveform out gear (so amps, cables, file formats etc., but not
speakers) makes *any* difference at all. It is not very good for
determining which of two different things is better.
ABX has the same issue
johann wrote:
Isn't Is there any difference a good start?
Absolutely.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
doctor_big wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that measure the same
being reliably shown as sounding different via ABX?
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
To try to
Julf wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
I'm betting your definition of 'actually sounding different' makes this
a circular argument.
I have less confidence in a result where I hear a
Julf wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
Jesus Christ - It's like trying to nail jello to a wall. That's the
type of behaviour I see on fundy Christian websites. Never a straight
doctor_big wrote:
Jesus Christ - It's like trying to nail jello to a wall. That's the
type of behaviour I see on fundy Christian websites. Never a straight
answer.
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! Maybe it is because you are trying to
nail things to the wall that makes your questions be
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm betting your definition of 'actually sounding different' makes this
a circular argument.
Not necessarily. What is your definition for actually sounding
different?
A lot of these discussions are predicated on ideas like: there is the
right way to do it and by
Julf wrote:
ABX, when properly executed, has the pro that it mostly takes the
expectation bias out of the picture, allowing you to listen with just
your ears.
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no
johann wrote:
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no audible
difference.
Fair enough - but what method would do that? You can't really make a
person hear a difference if they don't hear a
johann wrote:
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no audible
difference.
Expectation bias works both ways. And expectation bias is but one of
many cognitive heuristics and biases known to exist, and
Julf wrote:
Fair enough - but what method would do that? You can't really make a
person hear a difference if they don't hear a difference
They should simply not take part in such tests. :)
johann's Profile:
garym wrote:
Expectation bias works both ways. And expectation bias is but one of
many cognitive heuristics and biases known to exist, and tested
extensively in the psychology literature (primacy effect, recency
effect, and many others). To your point if someone thinks there is no
audible
johann wrote:
They should simply not take part in such tests. :)
Indeed - no joke. For anyone seriously interested in listening tests, I
really recommend 'ITU-R BS.1534'
(http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1534-2-201406-I/en) and 'ITU-R BS.1116'
Julf wrote:
Sure. Which is why we can have a rational discussion about the pros and
the cons. ABX, when properly executed, has the pro that it mostly takes
the expectation bias out of the picture, allowing you to listen with
just your ears. What, in your view, are the cons?
I have done
I agree there is definitely the danger of test fatigue. That is why,
for a proper test, you need enough test subjects so that no one subject
needs to do it for too long in one go.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
pablolie wrote:
i fundamentally disagree with the premise that, from a certain point
on, gear tends to sound the same provided it is good enough. not at
all.
gear sounds vastly different. the million dollar question is to
ascertain whether it merely sounds *better* or more *accurate* or
i also view comparing-testing as a hassle. it is exhausting, since
listening to details and writing my impressions takes away from simply
enjoying the music, which is what i sit in front of my system for. i
*love* not to think about the equipment, and simply sit and enjoy the
music. but sometimes
22 matches
Mail list logo
