ralphpnj wrote:
> I can understand your dismissal of using DSP in an "audiophile hi-end
> stereo system" but what about using DSP and DRC (digital room
> correction) to produce a stereo system that is not only much less costly
> but also much less complicated (music server + an all-in-one stereo
Archimago wrote:
> Despite the claims and comments, JH901, I think you're a cool guy and if
> I lived in your part of N. America, I'd happily drive over with a decent
> length of 12G OFC zip cords (10' enough?) and decent connectors (banana
> plugs?) which can be easily connected/disconnected to
jh901 wrote:
> Noted and appreciated. I will dig into your earlier posts.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, I'm not looking for academics looking to score for themselves, but
> rather some curious guys looking to have a little fun for a couple
> hours. There must be Phd students, etc who have an interest
jkeny wrote:
> You are correct - I shouldn't have generalised your comments -
> apologies.
>
> The Jitter ABX testing is not done on just one file which has 1000ns p-p
> added jitter - it includes a number of such tests on files with
> progressively lower simulated jitter levels & on some files
ralphpnj wrote:
> Okay one question - what do you mean by "failing" the blind test?
Sorry, loose terminology - I mean getting a null result or doing
statistically close to random guessing.
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.sl
jh901 wrote:
> The basics of Audyssey in modern AVRs/AVPs are about as easy as one
> could expect. I'm personally not interested in this sort of calibration
> or DSP for audiophile hi-end stereo systems. I'm mostly interested in
> the digital transport developments, USB DACs, and the possible
>
jkeny wrote:
> The purpose of a blind test is to eliminate as far as possible biases,
> influences on our auditory perception - the main one being the cognitive
> bias that is cited as being the result of knowing what we are testing.
> If you think that you can do a blind test without having firs
The basics of Audyssey in modern AVRs/AVPs are about as easy as one
could expect. I'm personally not interested in this sort of calibration
or DSP for audiophile hi-end stereo systems. I'm mostly interested in
the digital transport developments, USB DACs, and the possible
integration of the trad
jkeny wrote:
>
>
> Huh? It's jh901's claims (as this is what he is setting himself up for)
> that are being tested here. And, if it's going to be used as some sort
> of "proof" that jh901 can indeed differentiate between his silver cable
> & some cheap copper one, then he will be asked to produ
jh901 wrote:
> Ha! Yes. I was referring to throwing a blanket over the speakers such
> that the sound is muffled. I was suggesting that it would be easy to be
> blinded and hear that different and that I expect nearly that dramatic a
> difference between my cables and copper zip cord. Well, co
Julf wrote:
> Great - still haven't heard back from my old contacts at CMU, and I
> don't want to be to pushy, so I might wait a day or two before prompting
> again.
>
> Meanwhile, happy to answer any questions.
Cool. Appreciated and no rush at all. Ideally, I can meet a few good
folks over i
jkeny wrote:
> I think it wise to do as you say but forget about the blanket - close
> your eyes or some such blinding technique
Ha! Yes. I was referring to throwing a blanket over the speakers such
that the sound is muffled. I was suggesting that it would be easy to be
blinded and hear that d
Wombat wrote:
> Anyone that has experience and can explain what equivalent cheap cord he
> should choose against the 9 gauge oval? A 9 gauge copper but shorter to
> have roughly the same resistence or some standard 9 gauge silvered of
> the same length?
If no one here tells me what to get, then
jh901 wrote:
> Noted. I suppose I'll ABX with between 3-10 passages that I'm familiar
> with. We are talking about cables here so it shouldn't be as
> challenging as source resolution (16/44 vs Hi-res). I expect dramatic
> differences and if I don't experience that sighted, then I'll report
>
jh901 wrote:
> If all goes as expected then I can have a friend help with a blind test
> before the official.
I just suggest trying to make sure they are properly double-blind. From
some other (non-audio) tests I have done I have come away amazed at how
good humans are at picking up cues from ot
ralphpnj wrote:
> I'm confused. Isn't the purpose of a double blind test to determine if
> there is, in fact, a difference and not, as the above would have it, to
> determine if one can find/hear/see/feel/sense an -*existing*- (or least
> prejudged) difference.The purpose of a blind test is to el
jh901 wrote:
> I'm in no hurry and I do appreciate the support so far and I look
> forward to just a tiny bit more from a few of you. Again, sincere
> appreciation.
Great - still haven't heard back from my old contacts at CMU, and I
don't want to be to pushy, so I might wait a day or two before
jkeny wrote:
>
>
> As per the Gearslutz thread, it shows that the first step is identifying
> & isolating a specific aspect or artifact in the music that can be
> focused on during blind testing. Without this step there is absolutely
> no point in going any further as I advised JH901
>
>
Not
Anyone that has experience and can explain what equivalent cheap cord he
should choose against the 9 gauge oval? A 9 gauge copper but shorter to
have roughly the same resistence or some standard 9 gauge silvered of
the same length?
btw. jh you mentioned you changed sibilance with this cable. Sibil
jkeny wrote:
> Yes, I don't mean this in a sarcastic way but it's obvious that you
> haven't done a blind test before - you don't realise what it entails as
> I've tried to point out in my advice. You are walking blindly into a
> test that will embarrass you & some people are very happy to let yo
jkeny wrote:
> Yes, I don't mean this in a sarcastic way but it's obvious that you
> haven't done a blind test before - you don't realise what it entails as
> I've tried to point out in my advice. You are walking blindly into a
> test that will embarrass you & some people are very happy to let yo
jh901 wrote:
> Julf, arnyk, and others: I do intend to round up a couple of academics
> to administer the ABX. I'll likely take a look at a couple of links on
> the topic, but I'm not interested in proving my level of expertise it
> (which will be very little!). Of course, I'd think that anyon
Julf, arnyk, and others: I do intend to round up a couple of academics
to administer the ABX. I'll likely take a look at a couple of links on
the topic, but I'm not interested in proving my level of expertise it
(which will be very little!). Of course, I'd think that anyone
following this will
Archimago wrote:
> Hey, just adding a comment about an interesting ABX test result rather
> than general comment on ABX as you and Arny have been discussing!
>
> The 16/44 vs. software upsampled 24/192 test is -very different- from
> the jitter one! When did I imply that my comments on the Babyf
Archimago wrote:
> Hey, just adding a comment about an interesting ABX test result rather
> than general comment on ABX as you and Arny have been discussing!
>
> The 16/44 vs. software upsampled 24/192 test is -very different- from
> the jitter one! When did I imply that my comments on the Babyf
jkeny wrote:
> As I said, Archi, I was asked to give examples of real world experience
> of positive ABX testing when I posted advice to jh901 nothing else.
>
> I also posted his ABX results for jitter files so unless you have some
> evidence that the RME Babyface soundcard is in some way also a
Wombat wrote:
> We just lately had a thread at Hydrogen where *someone* did positive abx
> with the Babyface playback at 44.1k against 192k. He was not able to abx
> the same file with 192k->44.1k->192k i prepared with sox for 192k
> playback. So yes, the Babyface itself should really produce cle
Gandhi wrote:
> You have already answered some of my vague questions. But to be more
> specific, they were regarding properties like for instance ease of
> setting up, getting a simple result, getting a really good result for
> one or perhaps even several points in the room, getting detailed
> in
Julf wrote:
> Indeed. And the fact that the mainstream audiophile publications and
> forums are not jumping on this stuff is really the most telling part. If
> this is what the audiophile community refers to when talking about
> "keeping an open mind", then why should we think all their other cla
arnyk wrote:
> Is the correct interpretation of the above: When Naim did the
> downsampling 192 -> 44.1 there was an audible loss in the downsampling
> 192 -> 44.1, but when you did the 192 -> 44.1 downsampling with Sox,
> there was no audible difference?
Please read the thread again. The files
Wombat wrote:
> We just lately had a thread at Hydrogen where someone did positive abx
> with the Babyface playback at 44.1k against 192k. He was not able to abx
> the same file with 192k->44.1k->192k i prepared with sox for 192k
> playback. So yes, the Babyface itself should really produce clear
arnyk wrote:
> The grounds for comparing system optimization software do not appear to
> be specified in detail.
You have already answered some of my vague questions. But to be more
specific, they were regarding properties like for instance ease of
setting up, getting a simple result, getting a
Archimago wrote:
> Yes, indeed a very interesting result and great that he took the time to
> run the ABX. As you suggest, we have to be careful what the result
> actually means of course. Remembering that this is 16/44 played back
> natively by the RME Babyface vs. a 24/192 -upsample- using Soun
jkeny wrote:
> The speculation comes in the continuation of your post which you omitted
> _\"__I_guess_the_non-audiophile_in_me_tends_to_go_\"and_if_the_differences_are_that_small,_does_it_actually_matter?\",_as_in_\"does_a_difference_so_small_that_I_have_to_go_through_extreme_measures_to_hear_it
jkeny wrote:
> And if you want advice about trolling go to an expert like Arny
And if I was Arny, 'I would take that as a compliment'
(http://www.cantechletter.com/2015/06/anti-gmo-founding-father-mark-lynas-says-internet-trolls-changed-his-mind/).
"To try to judge the real from the false wil
jkeny wrote:
> And if you want advice about trolling go to an expert like Arny
Thank you very much Jkeny!
My thesis has been that you have a powerful negative emotional reaction
towards ABX and what do you but immediately contribute evidence that
exactly confirms my hypothesis!
And if you want advice about trolling go to an expert like Arny
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407
jkeny wrote:
> Again you try very hard to make it appear that the advice I gave jh901
> is somehow erroneous without specifically stating what is incorrect in
> my statement to him.\
>
No, it is just that I despair of repeating advice that I just gave in
the recent past that obviously flew righ
Again you try very hard to make it appear that the advice I gave jh901
is somehow erroneous without specifically stating what is incorrect in
my statement to him.
"-Word of advice, jh901- do a blind test at home first - you need to be
able to isolate a short section of music where you can focus
jkeny wrote:
> So, Arny, despite all your convoluted posts & "apparent disagreement"
> with the advice I posted to jh901 - you find no grounds to disagree with
> it.
?
I disagree with your advice on the grounds that it is irrelevant to
actual audio testing, and contains the many
As I said, Archi, I was asked to give examples of real world experience
of positive ABX testing when I posted advice to jh901 nothing else.
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this th
41 matches
Mail list logo
