Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Can DVD players make good CD players?

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Phil

unread,
Mar 4, 2002, 2:13:25 PM3/4/02
to
Two years ago my Meridian CD player grew old and died. It's then that
I decided that a dvd player should succeed my cd player. At the same
time I elected to forgo my customary research into brands and models,
and settle instead for the recommendation of a hi-fi pretender and
good friend. The result was a Toshiba dvd player.

Shortly thereafter my British Fidelity pre-amp succombed, replaced by
a Rotel. I had gotten to that point in life where pecuniary
investments seemed more important than incremental improvements in
audio fidelity.

Interimly I've watched dvd's and explored mid twentieth century pop
music. A very recent return to classical music brought shock. The
sound of my CD's is egregious, metallic, thin and in total,
uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!

I've got a pair of Meridian mono amps powering Quantum Pyramids,
smallish and very fast speakers with an honest bass. I'd love to hear
your answers to the following questions. Keep in mind that 98% of my
collection is classical.

1. Will everything sound bad so long as I keep the Rotal pre-amp?

2. Can I get a great sounding dvd/cd player or should I buy separates?

3. Can you recommend a good cd or dvd player for under $1k?

Thank you.

AudioEnz

unread,
Mar 4, 2002, 4:17:44 PM3/4/02
to
Phil <phil...@philharmony.net> wrote

> Interimly I've watched dvd's and explored mid twentieth century pop
> music. A very recent return to classical music brought shock. The
> sound of my CD's is egregious, metallic, thin and in total,
> uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!

You've discovered what many other listeners have discovered. Despite "high
res" DACs and all the right bells and whistles, most DVD players make for
poor sound CD players. (Arny will pop in here and proclaim them perfect).

Take your DVD player along to a good local hi-fi retailer along with some of
your CDs. Compare your Toshiba to affordable CD players from Rotel (the 971
is particularly good), Arcam (CD72, CD92 and FMJ CD21 if you want to spend
more for a truly superb player), the Rega Planet, Marantz 6000 OSE and KI
versions (if available in the US) and NAD (the 521 and 541).

You should find that
a). music sounds better on a good CD player than on your DVD player
b). you'll find yourself drawn into the performance of the music more than
you currently do with your DVD player.

Let us know what happens.

Michael Jones
Editor, AudioEnz

--------------------
New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
http://www.audioenz.co.nz

TonyP

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 11:36:07 AM3/5/02
to
AudioEnz wrote:

> You've discovered what many other listeners have discovered. Despite "high
> res" DACs and all the right bells and whistles, most DVD players make for
> poor sound CD players. (Arny will pop in here and proclaim them perfect).

I have to agree with you here. My old and still working 1bit JVC
(about 10 yrs old) still works, but didn't sound as good as my
Marantz DVD player. Then, being the "separates" type that I am, I
bought the Parasound CD player. It was night and day as far as
listening to music was concerned. I loved it (inspite of having to
send it back because it refused to play some CD's). Listening to
music was now enjoyable instead of tolerable. Tossed in now the ART
DI/O (modified with beefier power supply and RCA phono jacks) and
music is great. Rest of system? Counterpoint SA3 pre, SA2 headamp,
SA220 power amp, VPI/Koetsu, Acoustat 1+1's and Monster, MIT,
Distech, Esoteric cables tossed in there.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 11:36:43 AM3/5/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:

>Phil <phil...@philharmony.net> wrote
>> Interimly I've watched dvd's and explored mid twentieth century pop
>> music. A very recent return to classical music brought shock. The
>> sound of my CD's is egregious, metallic, thin and in total,
>> uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!
>
>You've discovered what many other listeners have discovered. Despite "high
>res" DACs and all the right bells and whistles, most DVD players make for
>poor sound CD players. (Arny will pop in here and proclaim them perfect).
>
>Take your DVD player along to a good local hi-fi retailer along with some of
>your CDs. Compare your Toshiba to affordable CD players from Rotel (the 971

>is particularly good), Arcam (CD72, CD92 and FMJ CD23 if you want to spend


>more for a truly superb player), the Rega Planet, Marantz 6000 OSE and KI
>versions (if available in the US) and NAD (the 521 and 541).
>
>You should find that
>a). music sounds better on a good CD player than on your DVD player
>b). you'll find yourself drawn into the performance of the music more than
>you currently do with your DVD player.

I agree with Mike's comments, and I'd add that if you are concerned
about the preamp, then try running direct from the cvariable outputs
on those CD players which have them, straight into the power amps. The
best preamp is no preamp!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 3:40:54 PM3/5/02
to
Stewart Pinkerton <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
: AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:

I don't see how you, or Mike can say that anyone *should* find the
sound of a good CD player to be better than that of a DVD player, or
that they *will* find themselves more drawn into the music...these
being matters purely of preference, after all.

Nor am I aware of any DBTs having been conducted or reported between
the DVD and CD models in question, to determine simply if there is
audible difference.

--

-S.
<your dumb post here>

AudioEnz

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 6:30:17 PM3/5/02
to
Stephen Sullivan said:
> I don't see how you, or Mike can say that anyone *should* find the
> sound of a good CD player to be better than that of a DVD player, or
> that they *will* find themselves more drawn into the music...

My comments are based on my experiences with people trying just what I've
suggested. It happens over and over again.

I suspect that your comments are based more on a need to believe that
everything sounds the same, rather than any desire to help people gain
greater musical enjoyment.

You see, I've suggested that the original poster try something, to enable
him to make up his own mind. I have not, as you've suggested, proscribed to
him what must happen. See the difference between having an open and a closed
mind?

And bud, it's Michael, not Mike.

Phil

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 10:03:22 PM3/5/02
to
ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<a62s6...@enews3.newsguy.com>...

Stewart you've got my attention. In the past I've shied from
bypassing the pre-amp because I'd too many contending front ends. But
now, without a tuner, turntable or vcr, the idea sounds better, even
terrific.

It's hard to imagine it'd be easy to find cd players based on this
criterion. Do you know of any specific brands and/or models?

Do you have experience doing this? While going direct from player to
amp does not preclude use of other sources, their employment would be
made considerably more difficult, turning off the amps and moving
cables. To be sure not a big deal for the true audiophile. Failing
that appellation, as might i, could yield a disconsonant consonance :)

Thank you.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 10:04:32 PM3/5/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:

: Stephen Sullivan said:
:> I don't see how you, or Mike can say that anyone *should* find the
:> sound of a good CD player to be better than that of a DVD player, or
:> that they *will* find themselves more drawn into the music...

: My comments are based on my experiences with people trying just what I've
: suggested. It happens over and over again.

Which *might* be meaningful...or not, given the problems associated with
sighted, nonlevelmatched comparisons.

: I suspect that your comments are based more on a need to believe that


: everything sounds the same, rather than any desire to help people gain
: greater musical enjoyment.

Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...and which do not. Imagine
if all audio reviews were accompanied by such data. Imagine if the
compiled results were published in tabular form every year. One could
then do at least two things 1) buy cheaper component A , knowing (as well
as we can know, or at least, far better than we know from current
audiophile reveiws) that it sounds the same as expensive component B, or
2) check out components C and D, knowing that they really do sound
different -- and thus choosing based on *audible* preference.

<swoon>

(Imagine the outrage among audiophile hucksters!)

: You see, I've suggested that the original poster try something, to enable


: him to make up his own mind. I have not, as you've suggested, proscribed to
: him what must happen. See the difference between having an open and a closed
: mind?

I guess the word 'should' means something a bit different to you...to me,
it's prescriptive. Or at the very last predictive. And you used it. You
also foretold how the the listener would be 'drawn in' to one but not the
other sound field. That's an impressive talent....is it a form of 'cold
reading'?

: And bud, it's Michael, not Mike.

And it's Steve or Steven, not bud. 'Should' I be insulted?

--

-S.
"Get real, you lazy, stupid,skeptic. The truth is the obvious: Sullivan
is anti-christ just because it's his job." - Chet Klock

AudioEnz

unread,
Mar 5, 2002, 11:10:11 PM3/5/02
to
Steven Sullivan said:
> Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
> level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...

It's said that there is a time and place for everything.

However, some people in rec.audio.high-end seem to think that every time and
every place is appropriate for bringing DBT into every thread.

I'm sure that there's a name for this compulsion to bring every conversation
back to one (and only one) topic. Perhaps Michael Gindi can let us know what
this affliction of yours is called.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 3:38:57 AM3/6/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:

: Steven Sullivan said:
:> Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
:> level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...

: It's said that there is a time and place for everything.

: However, some people in rec.audio.high-end seem to think that every
: time and : every place is appropriate for bringing DBT into every
: thread.

My, you do seem prone to exaggeration.

: I'm sure that there's a name for this compulsion to bring every conversation


: back to one (and only one) topic. Perhaps Michael Gindi can let us know what
: this affliction of yours is called.

Call it skepticism..or a forlorn desire for more scientific standards
and/or more precise language...or just a low tolerance for bullshit
(though years of reading audiophile rags should have acclimated me to
this by now, I know).

Be assured that the persistence of anecdote-as-fact assertions in
these matters -- absent even the merest recognition of the body of
scientific data regarding the flaws of nonlevlematched sighted
comparisons -- is as annoying to me as my gadflying is to you.
Which viewpoint d'you think gets more airtime?

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 3:39:05 AM3/6/02
to
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:

>Stewart Pinkerton <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>: AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:
>
>:>Phil <phil...@philharmony.net> wrote
>:>> Interimly I've watched dvd's and explored mid twentieth century pop
>:>> music. A very recent return to classical music brought shock. The
>:>> sound of my CD's is egregious, metallic, thin and in total,
>:>> uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!
>:>
>:>You've discovered what many other listeners have discovered. Despite "high
>:>res" DACs and all the right bells and whistles, most DVD players make for
>:>poor sound CD players. (Arny will pop in here and proclaim them perfect).
>:>
>:>Take your DVD player along to a good local hi-fi retailer along with some of
>:>your CDs. Compare your Toshiba to affordable CD players from Rotel (the 971
>:>is particularly good), Arcam (CD72, CD92 and FMJ CD23 if you want to spend
>:>more for a truly superb player), the Rega Planet, Marantz 6000 OSE and KI
>:>versions (if available in the US) and NAD (the 521 and 541).
>:>
>:>You should find that
>:>a). music sounds better on a good CD player than on your DVD player
>:>b). you'll find yourself drawn into the performance of the music more than
>:>you currently do with your DVD player.
>
>: I agree with Mike's comments, and I'd add that if you are concerned

>: about the preamp, then try running direct from the variable outputs


>: on those CD players which have them, straight into the power amps. The
>: best preamp is no preamp!
>
>I don't see how you, or Mike can say that anyone *should* find the
>sound of a good CD player to be better than that of a DVD player, or
>that they *will* find themselves more drawn into the music...these
>being matters purely of preference, after all.

Perhaps it would help if I note that I did not say that, I should
clarify that my agreement was limited to Mike's recommendation to make
direct comparisons (although doing this at home is *much* better), and
to agreement with his selection of several good-sounding CD players. I
apologise for seeming to agree that anyone *should* find that music
sounds better on the CD player and particularly that anyone should
feel more 'drawn into the performance' - I can do this on a cheap
boombox if the *performance* is good.

Note also that Mike has previously claimed several things about the
sound of various CD players which seems *very* difficult to support in
the real physical world.

What I *have* done is to point out the various mechanisms which could
*explain* differences in sound, *if* they truly exist. As I have
become very tired of saying in this forum - first establish that there
*is* an audible difference, using controlled testing, *then* look for
the casuse!

>Nor am I aware of any DBTs having been conducted or reported between
>the DVD and CD models in question, to determine simply if there is
>audible difference.

I've done this with mine, but since my Pioneer DVD player uses Legato
Link filtering, that was likely the main cause of the audible
difference.

AudioEnz

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 4:01:02 AM3/6/02
to
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> said:

> My, you do seem prone to exaggeration.

...about my saying how some people like to alter every thread into a
discussion on DBT.

He then shows how correct I am when he continues:


> Be assured that the persistence of anecdote-as-fact assertions in
> these matters -- absent even the merest recognition of the body of
> scientific data regarding the flaws of nonlevlematched sighted
> comparisons

As many people on rec.audio.high-end love to shout out demands for "proof",
I'm glad that Steven is supplying all the proof one needs to support my
contention that some people like to alter every thread into a discussion on
DBT.

Steven, so far you have not done one thing to help Phil, the original
poster, with his question about possibly buying a CD player. All you have
done is attack my suggestion that he listen and make his own decision.

Are you willing to help Phil, or are your activities constricted solely to
attacking the views of other people

Arny Krueger

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 12:56:58 PM3/6/02
to
"Phil" <phil...@philharmony.net> wrote in message
news:a60h02$p2n$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...

> 1. Will everything sound bad so long as I keep the Rotel pre-amp?

Please consider the possibility that the Rotel preamp may not be the
source of your problem. I recently noticed that the
sound of one of my CD players had become let's say, egregious,
metallic, thin and in total, uninspiring, while the same CDs sounded
great on the DVD player that sat right under it. I put the CD player
on the test bench and found that the output capacitors of the CD
player had lost much of their capacitance. There was a major loss of
response below 100 Hz. I'm trying to make the point is that things
break and wear out and if you don't have any way to isolate the
problem by means of technical tests or replacements, you will have a
hard time knowing where the problem it.

> 2. Can I get a great sounding DVD/CD player or should I buy
separates?

I'm of the opinion that DVD players can make excellent CD players. I
base this on DBT listening tests and technical tests. You can read
some of my technical tests at
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/summary/index.htm . I recently did
some DBTs based on playing the same music through a $130 no-name DVD
player, capturing the results with an exceptionally high quality
digital recorder, burning a CD of what I captured, and playing that
through the same DVD player, again and again. After 5 iterations of
that, I still can't hear any difference between the music that had
been re-played 5 times in a row, and the original. I intend to carry
this out to 20 iterations and post the results at my www.pcabx.com
web site so that people can hear this for themselves.

This same discussion has come up on rec.audio.opinion. Again I'm the
only person I know of who has done relevant technical tests and DBTs.
It has been pointed out that a potential exposure in a DVD player is
leakage of video into the audio outputs. This leakage ahs specific
technical causes and should cause specific technical effects. I've
pointed out that my sensitive measurements of several mass-market
players don't show these effects.

I have seen a report of video signal contamination from a high end
video player tested by Mr. Atkinson (or Stereophile) and I don't
doubt the report. OTOH, I've tested several lower-priced mass-market
DVD players and not found any evidence of such a thing.

In general, mass-market equipment receives more engineering attention
than high end equipment, because so much more money is riding on the
mass-market product's run. While there is quite a bit of truly
exceptional high end equipment (like Meridian) that is
well-engineered and well-made, there is no law that says this has to
extend to every high end product.

> 3. Can you recommend a good CD or DVD player for under $1k?

I wouldn't pay more than $200 for a DVD player. I'd recommend my best
DVD player, the Pioneer DV-525, but it's out of production.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 12:39:51 PM3/6/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:

>Steven Sullivan said:
>> Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
>> level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...
>
>It's said that there is a time and place for everything.
>
>However, some people in rec.audio.high-end seem to think that every time and
>every place is appropriate for bringing DBT into every thread.

It is, if you are interested in discovering *real* sonic differences!
Some of course, have an interest in generating reams of purple prose
about 'differences' which simply cannot be shown to exist in the
physical world. Vide the supposed 'lack of bass power' of a CD player
which is demonstrably flat to less than 20Hz.........

>I'm sure that there's a name for this compulsion to bring every conversation
>back to one (and only one) topic. Perhaps Michael Gindi can let us know what
>this affliction of yours is called.

I think that this would be known as a reply to your accusation (which
you so kindly snipped above) that Steve wants everything to sound the
same.........

Nousaine

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 12:39:36 PM3/6/02
to
Steven Sullivan ull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu wrote;

>AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:
>: Stephen Sullivan said:
>:> I don't see how you, or Mike can say that anyone *should* find the
>:> sound of a good CD player to be better than that of a DVD player, or
>:> that they *will* find themselves more drawn into the music...
>
>: My comments are based on my experiences with people trying just what I've
>: suggested. It happens over and over again.
>
>Which *might* be meaningful...or not, given the problems associated with
>sighted, nonlevelmatched comparisons.
>
>: I suspect that your comments are based more on a need to believe that
>: everything sounds the same, rather than any desire to help people gain
>: greater musical enjoyment.
>
>Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
>level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...and which do not. Imagine
>if all audio reviews were accompanied by such data. Imagine if the
>compiled results were published in tabular form every year. One could
>then do at least two things 1) buy cheaper component A , knowing (as well
>as we can know, or at least, far better than we know from current
>audiophile reveiws) that it sounds the same as expensive component B, or
>2) check out components C and D, knowing that they really do sound
>different -- and thus choosing based on *audible* preference.
>
><swoon>
>
>(Imagine the outrage among audiophile hucksters!)

Interestingly Dave Clark and Larry Greenhill used to do that very
thing in their Audio magazine reviews back in the late 80s. Greenhill
would do a subjective evaluation while Clark measured the device.
Follwoing that they each would perform an ABX double blind comparison
and report the results.

>: You see, I've suggested that the original poster try something, to enable
>: him to make up his own mind. I have not, as you've suggested, proscribed to
>: him what must happen. See the difference between having an open and a
>closed
>: mind?
>
>I guess the word 'should' means something a bit different to you...to me,
>it's prescriptive. Or at the very last predictive. And you used it. You
>also foretold how the the listener would be 'drawn in' to one but not the
>other sound field. That's an impressive talent....is it a form of 'cold
>reading'?

Th difference between an open and closed mind in this context is
believing in advance that all devices automatically sound different.

>
>: And bud, it's Michael, not Mike.
>
>And it's Steve or Steven, not bud. 'Should' I be insulted?

And it's Tom or Ultraborg, not Bud. Thanks in advance :)

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 12:39:46 PM3/6/02
to
phil...@philharmony.net (Phil) writes:

>ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<a62s6...@enews3.newsguy.com>...

>> If you are concerned


>> about the preamp, then try running direct from the cvariable outputs
>> on those CD players which have them, straight into the power amps. The
>> best preamp is no preamp!
>
>Stewart you've got my attention. In the past I've shied from
>bypassing the pre-amp because I'd too many contending front ends. But
>now, without a tuner, turntable or vcr, the idea sounds better, even
>terrific.
>
>It's hard to imagine it'd be easy to find cd players based on this
>criterion. Do you know of any specific brands and/or models?

I believe that all current Linn and Meridian players have a variable
output, but I couldn't swear to it. These are excellent players, and
available in a range of prices! Let me make an even better suggestion
- if you are using only one source, then all you need is a high
quality 10k or 20kohm potentiometer placed as close as is convenient
to the power amp.

>Do you have experience doing this?

I use a passive controller in both my main music system and my TV
sound system, so in a sense, yes. I've also tried using the variable
output of my trusty Sony direct into the power amp, and it sounded
identical to the fixed output going through the passive controller.

Thomas Hanssen

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 12:42:36 PM3/6/02
to
> It's hard to imagine it'd be easy to find cd players based on this
> criterion. Do you know of any specific brands and/or models?
>
> Do you have experience doing this? While going direct from player to
> amp does not preclude use of other sources, their employment would be
> made considerably more difficult, turning off the amps and moving
> cables. To be sure not a big deal for the true audiophile. Failing
> that appellation, as might i, could yield a disconsonant consonance :)
>
> Thank you.

I've got the Linn Genki cd player, with a variable output, and by the
hi-fi press considered quite allright for its price. However, my
experience is that the sound through a good preamp is considerably
better than through its own variable output. I suspect this might
have to do with a lack of power in the preamp section of the cd
player, though I am not sure.

regards
Thomas

Arny Krueger

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 1:48:49 PM3/6/02
to
"Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:a640up$90s$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...

> Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
> level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...and which do not.

How about something even more relevant and convincing than that -
what your ears report about a level-matched DBT conducted by you,
using the rest of your stereo system? Please see
http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm .

> Imagine if all audio reviews were accompanied by such data.

Selected audio reviews at www.pcavtech.com are accompanied by such
data.

> Imagine if the compiled results were published in tabular form
>every year.

You can compile the results of your own listening tests.

> One could
> then do at least two things 1) buy cheaper component A , knowing (as well
> as we can know, or at least, far better than we know from current

> audiophile reviews) that it sounds the same as expensive component B, or


> 2) check out components C and D, knowing that they really do sound
> different -- and thus choosing based on *audible* preference.

Those are both options to people who avail themselves of
http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm . Not everything is handled
this way because of the obvious effort and expense that it requires.
The purpose of the work that has been done to date is to establish
feasibility of the process.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 4:01:59 PM3/6/02
to
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
: "Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
: news:a640up$90s$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...

:> Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
:> level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...and which do not.

: How about something even more relevant and convincing than that -
: what your ears report about a level-matched DBT conducted by you,
: using the rest of your stereo system? Please see
: http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm .

Arny, I *am* going to get around to doing this some day..I promise!
THe main hitch AFAIR is getting my computer and stereo into the same
room...

:> Imagine if all audio reviews were accompanied by such data.

: Selected audio reviews at www.pcavtech.com are accompanied by such
: data.

And I regret not mentioning that...I was aware of it.

:> Imagine if the compiled results were published in tabular form
:>every year.

: You can compile the results of your own listening tests.

I was poking fun at Stereophile's list (and paying homage to Audio's
yearly tabular guides, which AFAIK have been discontinued). HAve the
pcabx users' results been tabulated, a la the soundcard comparison
results? Of course, no one can say for sure that results submitted
by reviewers aren't jiggered, but it'd still be better than what we
get in the rags.

:> One could


:> then do at least two things 1) buy cheaper component A , knowing (as well
:> as we can know, or at least, far better than we know from current
:> audiophile reviews) that it sounds the same as expensive component B, or
:> 2) check out components C and D, knowing that they really do sound
:> different -- and thus choosing based on *audible* preference.

: Those are both options to people who avail themselves of
: http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm . Not everything is handled
: this way because of the obvious effort and expense that it requires.

I'm aware of that...it's an enormous undertaking, and ferociously
unlikely to be adopted by the audiophile press. But one can dream.

: The purpose of the work that has been done to date is to establish
: feasibility of the process.

And how's it looking, feasibility-wise?

jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 4:01:41 PM3/6/02
to
In article <a64lrb$ied$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,

AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:
>Are you willing to help Phil, or are your activities constricted solely to
>attacking the views of other people

May I butt in here to say that there is a DVD player in my basement,
in front of the treadmill, for which 16 bit output seems to mean
somewhere in the range of 12 bits peak to noise floor?

There are bad examples of hardware in all kinds of equipment.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2002, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 4:02:03 PM3/6/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> said:

:> My, you do seem prone to exaggeration.
: ...about my saying how some people like to alter every thread into a
: discussion on DBT.

And there's that word 'every' again!

(You'll do it *every* time?)

I assure you I have no plans to alter the Maggies thread into a DBT
discussion.

: He then shows how correct I am when he continues:


:> Be assured that the persistence of anecdote-as-fact assertions in
:> these matters -- absent even the merest recognition of the body of
:> scientific data regarding the flaws of nonlevlematched sighted
:> comparisons

: As many people on rec.audio.high-end love to shout out demands for "proof",
: I'm glad that Steven is supplying all the proof one needs to support my
: contention that some people like to alter every thread into a discussion on
: DBT.

er...how on earth do you get *that* out of what I wrote? 'These
matters' refers to comparisons of components which, unless designed
to add distortion, are unlikely to exhibit audible differences under
controlled comparison conditions -- and even more rarely to exhibit
the sort of 'even my wife could hear it' differences persistently
reported.

'These matters' are therefore a *subset* of the many topics discussed
on RAHE. Thank god.

: Steven, so far you have not done one thing to help Phil, the original


: poster, with his question about possibly buying a CD player. All you have
: done is attack my suggestion that he listen and make his own decision.

I was just reminding Phil that the sorts of comparison you cited are
prone to biases. And reminding you that your claim that Phil
*should* have a certain experience requires more support than you
gave.

: Are you willing to help Phil, or are your activities constricted solely to
: attacking the views of other people.

I have a Pioneer F101 carousel CD player (no Legato Link there) and a
Toshiba SD-4700 DVD/DVD-A player; I haven't done blind, levelmatched
A/B comparisons on them; I can therefore only offer my experience
that under hideously uncontrolled conditions I can convince myself
that these two decks sound either the same or different (depending on
the day), but I don't think that's worth a hill of beans, really. If
someone wants to come to my house and help me do ABX on them, let me
know. ;>

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 4:01:55 PM3/6/02
to
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
: Steven Sullivan ull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu wrote;

And audiophiles scoffed at Audio magazine! (Do you remember if and
why this feature was discontinued?)

: And it's Tom or Ultraborg, not Bud. Thanks in advance :)

Hmm, I wonder if Middius has ever tried to post here?

[ He's tried. -- deb ]

Arny Krueger

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 5:56:26 PM3/6/02
to
"Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:a6604...@enews2.newsguy.com...

> : Those are both options to people who avail themselves of
> : http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm . Not everything is handled
> : this way because of the obvious effort and expense that it requires.

> I'm aware of that...it's an enormous undertaking, and ferociously
> unlikely to be adopted by the audiophile press. But one can dream.

I would like to redefine what the audiophile press is, into something
more reliable, progressive and interactive.

> : The purpose of the work that has been done to date is to establish
> : feasibility of the process.

> And how's it looking, feasibility-wise?

I'll leave it to others to give the final answer as to whether it is
useful and helpful. It seems to be at least curious.

In two and a half years people have downloaded more than 10,000 PCABX
Comparators and 250,000 test files. There are two types of test files
at www.pcabx.com - those related to audio issues and those related to
specific audio products. The mix is about 2 "issues" test files for
every "product" test file. Activity is doubling about every 9
months. So, the curiosity is there.

I don't think that there has ever been something like www.pcabx.com,
so many of the specifics had to be designed and built from scratch. I
think Of course I'd like to start over from scratch knowing what I
know now, but of course I don't want to do all that work again. I
know what the logical next step is. What I do next is based on the
availability of time and money and response from the market. Right
now I've sponsored myself and that is getting to be a bit tough, as
www.pcbx.com could demand quite a bit more than I can afford on my
own. For example, it currently uses about 600 megabytes of online
disc space.

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 6, 2002, 5:56:45 PM3/6/02
to
"AudioEnz" <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a644pl$alb$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...

> Steven Sullivan said:
> > Hardly! I would *love* to know which components actually do pass a
> > level-matched DBT conducted by 'golden ears'...
>
> It's said that there is a time and place for everything.
>
> However, some people in rec.audio.high-end seem to think that every
> time and every place is appropriate for bringing DBT into every
> thread.
>
> I'm sure that there's a name for this compulsion to bring every
> conversation back to one (and only one) topic. Perhaps Michael Gindi
> can let us know what this affliction of yours is called.
>
> Michael Jones
> Editor, AudioEnz
>

I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
discussion.

Arny Krueger

unread,
Mar 7, 2002, 11:30:31 AM3/7/02
to
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a666r...@enews3.newsguy.com...

> I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
> threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
> that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
> dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
> as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
> discussion.

I've always been under the impression that banning discussion of DBTs
was consistent with calling the place an "Asylum". Apparently the
inmates are in charge and rationalizing influences are forbidden.
Nothing like a group with a good healthy appreciation for the
principle of freedom of speech. ;-)

jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist

unread,
Mar 7, 2002, 11:31:12 AM3/7/02
to
In article <a666r...@enews3.newsguy.com>,

Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
>threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
>that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
>dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
>as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
>discussion.

You're dead wrong. The CABLE
asylum bans any discussion of DBT, positive or negative.

Your interpretation of why is similarly misleading, the
ban exists because of a recognition that people are
never going to agree.

AudioEnz

unread,
Mar 7, 2002, 9:52:51 PM3/7/02
to
Harry Lavo said:

> I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
> threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
> that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
> dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
> as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
> discussion.

I've been looking at adding a discussion forum to my AudioEnz website and
wondering about doing the very same thing. However, my current thinking is
more along the lines of having a DBT section within the forum, so
audiophiles can get on with sensible discussion elsewhere.

btw, I bet the the AA's forum has had a lot of traffic demanding that DBT
proponents be able to turn every thread into a DBT talk-fest, along with the
imortal cries of "I have a right"...

Chris Mauritz

unread,
Mar 7, 2002, 9:56:42 PM3/7/02
to

While I agree with you in principle, the opposite case (where a small
number of people from both camps bring almost any discussion to a
boring standstill with a descent into DBTisms) isn't very attractive
either. Consider for a moment how many people probably read and
post to this newsgroup. I'd guess that about 10 people account
for the lionshare of all group traffic (by volume, not by number
of posts) and that DBT bickering accounts for a substantial amount
of that traffic.

The bickering really detracts from the overall utility of the group.
It's gotten to the point where I've begun killfiling threads the
moment the ugly DBT acronym even shows up in the message body of
one of the messages. It's boring and I suspect that in all this
exchange of superheated air, nobody has been swayed from their
initial opinion on the matter.

If it matters, I'm in the "if you can't prove it with scientific
methods, it doesn't exist" camp. 8-)

Can't we all just get along?

Cheers,

C

--
Chris Mauritz
ri...@mordor.net

jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist

unread,
Mar 8, 2002, 11:44:36 AM3/8/02
to
In article <a6990u$m3j$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,

AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> wrote:
>btw, I bet the the AA's forum has had a lot of traffic demanding that DBT
>proponents be able to turn every thread into a DBT talk-fest, along with the
>imortal cries of "I have a right"...

No, Michael, that's not the case. Furthermore, as I already pointed
out, AA ONLY bans pro or con DBT discussions in the cable forum.

You can be sure that DBT threads do arise elsewhere.

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 8, 2002, 11:44:04 AM3/8/02
to
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:a684k...@enews3.newsguy.com...

> In article <a666r...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
> >threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
> >that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
> >dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
> >as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
> >discussion.
>
> You're dead wrong. The CABLE
> asylum bans any discussion of DBT, positive or negative.
>

Sorry JJ, you are right...I forgot that I was at the that place when
I read about the ban. As I said, I basically spent my time in two
other places. Just noticed it in passing.

> Your interpretation of why is similarly misleading, the
> ban exists because of a recognition that people are
> never going to agree.

Technically you are right, but on the other hand it is not we
"observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion at each and
every turn despite knowing this.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 8, 2002, 11:44:53 AM3/8/02
to
AudioEnz <in...@audioenz.co.nz> writes:

>Harry Lavo said:
>
>> I've just recently started to browse, very lightly, the Audio Asylum
>> threads. Mostly re vintage gear and SACD. I was interested to see
>> that their moderators have apparently *banned* any discussion of
>> dbt's in the Asylum. Not because of censorship, apparently, so much
>> as because of this unrelenting instistence on bringing dbt into every
>> discussion.
>
>I've been looking at adding a discussion forum to my AudioEnz website and
>wondering about doing the very same thing.

You should note that DBT debates are only banned within the *cable*
section of AA.

> However, my current thinking is
>more along the lines of having a DBT section within the forum, so
>audiophiles can get on with sensible discussion elsewhere.

Your bias is immediately noted, so true audiophiles might wish to
ignore your website altogether.............

>btw, I bet the the AA's forum has had a lot of traffic demanding that DBT
>proponents be able to turn every thread into a DBT talk-fest, along with the
>imortal cries of "I have a right"...

You could easily check that claim, but clearly you prefer to go along
with your preconceptions - does everyone see the pattern here?

Phil

unread,
Mar 8, 2002, 12:57:21 PM3/8/02
to
phil...@philharmony.net (Phil) wrote in message news:<a60h02$p2n$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
> Two years ago my Meridian CD player grew old and died. It's then that
> I decided that a dvd player should succeed my cd player. At the same
> time I elected to forgo my customary research into brands and models,
> and settle instead for the recommendation of a hi-fi pretender and
> good friend. The result was a Toshiba dvd player.
>
> Shortly thereafter my British Fidelity pre-amp succombed, replaced by
> a Rotel. I had gotten to that point in life where pecuniary
> investments seemed more important than incremental improvements in
> audio fidelity.

>
> Interimly I've watched dvd's and explored mid twentieth century pop
> music. A very recent return to classical music brought shock. The
> sound of my CD's is egregious, metallic, thin and in total,

> uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!
>
> I've got a pair of Meridian mono amps powering Quantum Pyramids,
> smallish and very fast speakers with an honest bass. I'd love to hear
> your answers to the following questions. Keep in mind that 98% of my
> collection is classical.
>
> 1. Will everything sound bad so long as I keep the Rotal pre-amp?
>
> 2. Can I get a great sounding dvd/cd player or should I buy separates?
>
> 3. Can you recommend a good cd or dvd player for under $1k?
>
> Thank you.

The should be obvious solution to my original query would be to go
listen to the best cd/dvd player I could find and compare it to the
best cd player I could find. My half job should suffice. The other
day I listened to the Meridian 800 dvd/cd player, played through the
Meridian top line system. I'd be satisfied with these in my home.
However requisite funds and room are absent.

Research usually assures me that more money is needed than budgeted.
So I'm almost sadly, willing to go as high as the Meridian 596,
another player heard and liked. I intend to buy this and one other
player for comparison with the Toshiba. Two players listed heretofore
are possible. Rega made the last turntable I bought, back in 1986.
It was one of the best built audio pieces I've owned. So their cd
player could be good, as suggests AudioEnz?

Linn also's been described enthusiastically. So Meridian 596 v Rega
Planet v Linn Genki.

Thank you, all for your pertinacity and kind help.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Mar 8, 2002, 1:57:30 PM3/8/02
to
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
: "jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in

"at each and every turn"? Yikes, the AudioEnz hypebole virus is
*spreading*.

If you were on am infectious diseases newsgroup, and kept posting
either explictly that the common cold can be cured with zinc (because
it cured you), or with the underlying assumption that it can be cured
by zinc. would it be wrong for anyone to keep pointing out that the
scientific evidence to date from controlled trials indicates that
zinc *cannot* cure the common cold?

jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist

unread,
Mar 9, 2002, 12:11:24 PM3/9/02
to
In article <a6apo...@enews2.newsguy.com>,

Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
>> Your interpretation of why is similarly misleading, the
>> ban exists because of a recognition that people are
>> never going to agree.

>Technically you are right, but on the other hand it is not we
>"observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion at each and
>every turn despite knowing this.

No, Sir, the ban was made in the way it was specifically because
some people were using the "no DBT" rule to make outrageous
anti-DBT claims.

The very history of how the ban came to be in its present form
demonstrates that the "subjective" side is not only capable, but
also willing, to attempt to use a closed forum to promote quackery
and propaganda.

Bob Marcus

unread,
Mar 9, 2002, 1:46:27 PM3/9/02
to
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<a6apo...@enews2.newsguy.com>...

> Technically you are right, but on the other hand it is not we
> "observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion at each and
> every turn despite knowing this.

A quick glance at the current threads suggests that most of those
related to DBTs were started by your fellow "observationalists."

Markus Laun

unread,
Mar 9, 2002, 2:01:43 PM3/9/02
to
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> I've done this with mine, but since my Pioneer DVD player uses Legato
> Link filtering, that was likely the main cause of the audible
> difference.
>

Ditto here. When running via analog output with the legato stuff it
sounds worse IMO.

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 9, 2002, 7:28:19 PM3/9/02
to
"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6apq...@enews2.newsguy.com...

Stewart, please check your quotes. ">" is not the same as ">>" and I had
nothing to do with those last two quotes...only the first.

Harry

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 9, 2002, 7:28:26 PM3/9/02
to
"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
message news:a6dfn...@enews3.newsguy.com...

> In article <a6apo...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> >> Your interpretation of why is similarly misleading, the
> >> ban exists because of a recognition that people are
> >> never going to agree.
>
> >Technically you are right, but on the other hand it is not we
> >"observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion at each and
> >every turn despite knowing this.
>
> No, Sir, the ban was made in the way it was specifically because
> some people were using the "no DBT" rule to make outrageous
> anti-DBT claims.

JJ, please note that I deliberately used the present tense, and did not
refer back to the cables section of Audio Asylum. Obviously based on my
post, I was not following AA at that time, and could only infer the
reason....which as I read simply meant that the arguments went on and on and
on and dominated what others might find to be a useful forum in other ways.
I mean't it more in the way of "are we getting anywhere with all this
bickering, or should we take a cue and "ban ourselves"...in other words,
stop.

But its like peace in the middle East...each side wants the other to stop
first.

As I've noted in another post, it seems to me that if we want to discuss
blind testing, then a discussion of in-home blind testing (not perfect but
better than sighted) might help more people and prove more interesting.

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 10, 2002, 12:37:39 PM3/10/02
to
"Bob Marcus" <nab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a6dl88$d8p$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...

As to recent ones, I agree. There has been quite a flurry. But that
I do not believe has been the case on this newsgroup historically.
Never officially counted 'em up, though, and don't really intend to
go back and do so.

I have Theloneous to listen to tonight...better use of my time. :-).

Harry

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 10, 2002, 12:38:38 PM3/10/02
to
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> writes:

Harry, everything isn't about *you*. Please check your quotes, you are
correctly credited as author of your quote, and AudioEnz (to whom I
was replying) is correctly credited with his. You are not mentioned in
my post - sorry about that.............

Since you're here, however, let me note in reference to *your* quote
that it turns out that the AA ban in its present form came about
because people like *you* were taking advantage of the original ban to
make outrageous anti-DBT comments, relying on the DBT ban to prevent
your nonsense being debunked.

Hence, your comment to JJ that:

>it is not we "observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion
>at each and every turn despite knowing this.

is, shall we say, inaccurate at best.

It's noticeable in these threads that the anti-DBT cabal is the one
which wishes to silence its opponents, rather than engage in rational
debate. Why do you suppose that is?

>As I've noted in another post, it seems to me that if we want to discuss
>blind testing, then a discussion of in-home blind testing (not perfect but
>better than sighted) might help more people and prove more interesting.

That's another of your quotes above, and I wonder what you think most
of us *have* been discussing, if not in-home blind testing? The
references to the commercial use of DBTs has only been in response to
those who inaccurately claim that DBTs don't work and aren't used,
they have nothing to do with the promotion of in-home DBTs as useful
tools for those amateur audiophiles who wish to know the *truth* about
sonic differences.

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 10, 2002, 4:00:06 PM3/10/02
to
"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6g5m...@enews3.newsguy.com...

Sorry, Stewart. I did go back to check, but obv iously missed the
AudioEnz reference. If I hadn't I obviously would not have posted
what I did. A simple mistake, for which I am sorry.

>
> Since you're here, however, let me note in reference to *your* quote
> that it turns out that the AA ban in its present form came about
> because people like *you* were taking advantage of the original ban to
> make outrageous anti-DBT comments, relying on the DBT ban to prevent
> your nonsense being debunked.
>
> Hence, your comment to JJ that:
>
> >it is not we "observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion
> >at each and every turn despite knowing this.
>
> is, shall we say, inaccurate at best.
>
> It's noticeable in these threads that the anti-DBT cabal is the one
> which wishes to silence its opponents, rather than engage in rational
> debate. Why do you suppose that is?
>

See my note to JJ re: my use of the present tense.

> >As I've noted in another post, it seems to me that if we want to discuss
> >blind testing, then a discussion of in-home blind testing (not perfect but
> >better than sighted) might help more people and prove more interesting.
>
> That's another of your quotes above, and I wonder what you think most
> of us *have* been discussing, if not in-home blind testing? The
> references to the commercial use of DBTs has only been in response to
> those who inaccurately claim that DBTs don't work and aren't used,
> they have nothing to do with the promotion of in-home DBTs as useful
> tools for those amateur audiophiles who wish to know the *truth* about
> sonic differences.
>

You are ignoring the fact that i said that blind-testing, not
double-blind testing, was the most practical test for home use.
Seems to me in your zeal for "perfection" in testing you are
overlooking practicality.

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Mar 10, 2002, 6:18:56 PM3/10/02
to
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> writes:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a6g5m...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> writes:

>> >Stewart, please check your quotes. ">" is not the same as ">>" and I had
>> >nothing to do with those last two quotes...only the first.
>>
>> Harry, everything isn't about *you*. Please check your quotes, you are
>> correctly credited as author of your quote, and AudioEnz (to whom I
>> was replying) is correctly credited with his. You are not mentioned in
>> my post - sorry about that.............
>
>Sorry, Stewart. I did go back to check, but obv iously missed the
>AudioEnz reference. If I hadn't I obviously would not have posted
>what I did. A simple mistake, for which I am sorry.

No problem, we all make mistakes.

>> Since you're here, however, let me note in reference to *your* quote
>> that it turns out that the AA ban in its present form came about
>> because people like *you* were taking advantage of the original ban to
>> make outrageous anti-DBT comments, relying on the DBT ban to prevent
>> your nonsense being debunked.
>>
>> Hence, your comment to JJ that:
>>
>> >it is not we "observationalists" who bring dbt's into the discussion
>> >at each and every turn despite knowing this.
>>
>> is, shall we say, inaccurate at best.
>>
>> It's noticeable in these threads that the anti-DBT cabal is the one
>> which wishes to silence its opponents, rather than engage in rational
>> debate. Why do you suppose that is?
>>
>See my note to JJ re: my use of the present tense.

Sounds very like a cover for a lost position, but whatever.

>> >As I've noted in another post, it seems to me that if we want to discuss
>> >blind testing, then a discussion of in-home blind testing (not perfect but
>> >better than sighted) might help more people and prove more interesting.
>>
>> That's another of your quotes above, and I wonder what you think most
>> of us *have* been discussing, if not in-home blind testing? The
>> references to the commercial use of DBTs has only been in response to
>> those who inaccurately claim that DBTs don't work and aren't used,
>> they have nothing to do with the promotion of in-home DBTs as useful
>> tools for those amateur audiophiles who wish to know the *truth* about
>> sonic differences.
>>
>You are ignoring the fact that i said that blind-testing, not
>double-blind testing, was the most practical test for home use.
>Seems to me in your zeal for "perfection" in testing you are
>overlooking practicality.

Double-blind testing isn't that much harder (but granted it's pretty
tedious), and experience shows that single-blind often fails due to
involuntary cues from the test administrator.

OTOH, let's not get this out of proportion. I'm not talking about a
professional reviewer having to go through this tedium every month,
I'm talking about the dedicated audiophile who might consider an
upgrade every couple of years. In this context, are you saying that
you care so little about your hobby that you won't spend a week of
tedium to *know* that you have truly improved your system? Maybe you
should take up fishing, and learn that patience yields results.......

Harry Lavo

unread,
Mar 11, 2002, 11:31:29 AM3/11/02
to
"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6gpju$9p3$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> writes:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

> >You are ignoring the fact that i said that blind-testing, not
> >double-blind testing, was the most practical test for home use.
> >Seems to me in your zeal for "perfection" in testing you are
> >overlooking practicality.
>
> Double-blind testing isn't that much harder (but granted it's pretty
> tedious), and experience shows that single-blind often fails due to
> involuntary cues from the test administrator.
>
> OTOH, let's not get this out of proportion. I'm not talking about a
> professional reviewer having to go through this tedium every month,
> I'm talking about the dedicated audiophile who might consider an
> upgrade every couple of years. In this context, are you saying that
> you care so little about your hobby that you won't spend a week of
> tedium to *know* that you have truly improved your system? Maybe you
> should take up fishing, and learn that patience yields results.......
>

PRACTICALITIES

Let's talk practicality. Double blind tests, as you point out, are
tedious and require detailed record keeping Since randomized a-b
comparators are not available for rent, the only "home-brew" way I
know that a dbt can be done is to record alternating a and b, b and
a, etc. at random, then starting the recording at a random spot so A
and B are not known (you can mark the starting index so later you can
go back and figure out where you started and what the actual a's and
b's were from then on). This of course presumes the recording is
transparent and sensitive enough not to mask the difference.

However, the more overwhelming fact, as you point out, is that any
dbt is tedious, for you have to know exactly what each choice was
after the fact (in this case, indexing each pair) and then be able to
grade the choices you make. Dealers are loathe to loan equipment for
more than one day (usually Saturday close to Monday). To accomplish
such a test in one day would probably take all day. How many
audiophiles have that kind of luxury and freedom from the demands of
their family, etc.

Blind a-b testing is also difficult, but not nearly so much. All you
have to do is have a partner do the switching with a random starting
point, and guess. You can do this in short stretches of time, with
interruptions and simple scoring.

BAYESIAN DECISIONG THEORY AS IT APPLIES

Now comes the interesting part. Ever hear of Bayesian Decision
Analysis? Its a way of making decisions based on optimizing the cost
of obtaining more perfect information vs. the probability of making
an erroneous decision, in increasing steps of certainty. This
technique was first developed in the field of Operations Research,
and has sometimes been applied in other fields (I used it to
optimized test techniques for consumer products market research).

The issue is simply this. DBT gives you a probability of being right
through repeat samples, with no "noise" from non-audio influences.
SBT gives you a probability of being right through repeat samples,
with slight "noise" if the switcher somehow conveys information.

DBT vs. SBT

The real question is: is the added certainty of the probability
reading from dbt worth the added cost, over sbt? I would argue no,
it isn't in terms of the practical difficulty between the two, for
most audiophiles. But this calculation must factor in not only the
cost, but also the consequences of being wrong. And this in turn
depends on how important (or large) the payoff is from being right.
Let me illustrate this by practical example.

If the result of being wrong was my death, then I would put a great
deal of effort into minimizing the chance of being wrong, and the
small increase in certainty from dbt would probably be worthwhile.

If I was a very wealthy audiophile, and the result of being wrong was
a blow to my ego, then whether or not it was worthwhile would depend
on the fragility of my ego.

If I was a impecunious audiophile, and the result of being wrong was
a false expenditure of money that I had managed to save over three
years, then it might or might not be worth it. I fall into this
latter category, yet I think the difference in uncertainty
(unknowable, and thus subjective....that is what Bayes's theorem was
all about) to me would not be worth the difference since I believe
the increase in reliability between sbt and dbt is fairly small.

SBT vs. Sighted Testing

However, the same analysis holds sway between sighted testing, and
single-blind testing. Again, one must estimate the increase in
subjective probability of being wrong against the cost of doing so.

Again, if my life depended on it I wouldn't want to rely only on
sighted testing.

If I were a very wealthy audiophile with a sturdy ego, I could easily
skip sbt and live with sighted.

If I were a very wealthy audiophile with a not-so-sturdy ego, I might
wish to do at least a sbt to be sure I wasn't wrong.

If I were an inpecunious audiophile making an expensive (relative to
income) purchase I might also want to do at least a sbt.

Finally, the increase in the probability of being wrong as one goes
from sbt to sighted testing also depends on how well once knows and
can control one's sight-based biases. The more one can, the less the
marginal utility of the sbt over the sighted testing.

Whew! Too much training as an economist, I guess.... :-)

At any rate, the whole issue of sighted vs. sbt vs. dbt is much more
complex than is generally argued here, as I hope the above has
illustrated.

And I also hope it might shed a different perspective on what lies
behind the controversy that constantly unfolds here, for example:
which of the above example categories do most audiophiles fall into?

Both supporting and opposing POV's are expected, so dive in folks.

jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist

unread,
Mar 11, 2002, 11:33:35 AM3/11/02
to
In article <a6g5l...@enews3.newsguy.com>,

Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>I have Theloneous to listen to tonight...better use of my time. :-).

Ry Cooder,"Jazz", presently. Better use of my time, too.