Can DVD players make good CD players?
Phil
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
> 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
> 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
>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
: 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
> 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
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
: 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
> 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
: 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
>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
> 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
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
>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
>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
>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
> 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
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
: "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
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
: 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
: 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
> : 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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
>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
> 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
> uninspiring. Even my mp3 portable, using mp3 files sounds better!
>
> 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
: "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
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>"jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
>> 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
> 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
>
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
>"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
> "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
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.
Arny Krueger
> 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.
I don's see where it really takes that much more to do a DBT than a
SBT in the home. Either way you need an assistant. Keeping him out of
sight doesn't take that much extra work. Many people have reported
doing DBTs at home without any special equipment.
OTOH, its well known that SBTs are often not appreciably less flawed
than a sighted evaluation. They are the true "mystery meat" of
testing procedures, because it is never known for sure if they are
blind or not. They are a great tool for charlatans, because they
provide the appearance of good science without the assurance of good
science.
Mkuller
>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.
>
Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
perspective for a change.
Regards,
Mike
Richard D Pierce
Mkuller <mku...@aol.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
>protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
>perspective for a change.
And when AT LEAST TWO of those who you accuse of "speaking
esoterically from an ivory tower" have said REPEATEDLY over the
years that for individuals making THEIR OWN listening choices,
ANY means THEY choose to make THEIR decisions is perfect FOR
THEM, why is that not an equally practical, real world
perspective?
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Bob Marcus
> to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
> protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
> perspective for a change.
> Regards,
> Mike
That's because the agenda of many (not all) DBT critics seems to be to
discredit the findings of DBTs, rather than to challenge their
practicality for the average consumer. But I certainly agree it's nice
to take it from a different angle, for a change.
A couple of observations: First, DBT is better than SBT, but there are
ways to reduce the danger that the tester in a SBT influences the
testee. First, use your wife, not a friendly audiophile, because she
won't have a stake in the outcome. (Just don't tell her what the two
units cost, or she will certainly try to queer the results!) The
tester shouldn't face the testee, and shouldn't speak. She should flip
a coin to decide X each time, and the tester should instruct her on
all changes. "Play A. Play B. Play X." This isn't perfect, but it
helps.
A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted testing
that one more isn't going to make a difference. But if you're going to
the trouble of blind testing, you really need to match levels
carefully. And that's more complicated than simply switching between
line-level inputs on your preamp. It's manageable, but it requires a
little more care than I suspect the *average* sighted listener
exhibits.
Also, Harry opined that a millionaire with a big ego might settle for
sighted testing, as would someone confident in his ability to block
out biases. I would suggest that those two things are very closely
related. It takes a big ego to believe you're good at something that
humans seem pretty consistently programmed to be bad at.
All this comes from someone who admittedly has never used a blind test
to make a serious purchasing decision. But that's because the only
thing I've bought recently is speakers. I'm thinking of tackling at
least a SBT before I buy a DVD player.
bob
Harry Lavo
> mku...@aol.com (Mkuller) wrote in message
> > Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
> > to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
> > protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
> > perspective for a change.
> > Regards,
> > Mike
>
> That's because the agenda of many (not all) DBT critics seems to be to
> discredit the findings of DBTs, rather than to challenge their
> practicality for the average consumer. But I certainly agree it's nice
> to take it from a different angle, for a change.
>
> A couple of observations: First, DBT is better than SBT, but there are
> ways to reduce the danger that the tester in a SBT influences the
> testee. First, use your wife, not a friendly audiophile, because she
> won't have a stake in the outcome. (Just don't tell her what the two
> units cost, or she will certainly try to queer the results!) The
> tester shouldn't face the testee, and shouldn't speak. She should flip
> a coin to decide X each time, and the tester should instruct her on
> all changes. "Play A. Play B. Play X." This isn't perfect, but it
> helps.
>
Great post, Bob, thanks. As I said in another post, one of the
things I haven't seen here are practical tips on how people deal with
testing in a home environment. My recording technique is one. Yours
is another. Hopefully there will be others.
BTW, what you are describing is a single blind a-b-x. A single-blind
A-b would be just identifying which was which, without knowing
whether a or b was chosen first. But you probably know that
already. <grin>
> A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
> testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted testing
> that one more isn't going to make a difference. But if you're going to
> the trouble of blind testing, you really need to match levels
> carefully. And that's more complicated than simply switching between
> line-level inputs on your preamp. It's manageable, but it requires a
> little more care than I suspect the *average* sighted listener
> exhibits.
>
Yep, agree although I guess I'm not as purist as some others as to
how this is done. Here again is an area for more discussion...we
touched on it once a few months ago but not since.
> Also, Harry opined that a millionaire with a big ego might settle for
> sighted testing, as would someone confident in his ability to block
> out biases. I would suggest that those two things are very closely
> related. It takes a big ego to believe you're good at something that
> humans seem pretty consistently programmed to be bad at.
>
Again, the thing with the Bayesian approach is...it doesn't matter so
long as the person making the decision can live with the "cost" of
being wrong.
> All this comes from someone who admittedly has never used a blind test
> to make a serious purchasing decision. But that's because the only
> thing I've bought recently is speakers. I'm thinking of tackling at
> least a SBT before I buy a DVD player.
>
As i would be if I could ever pry a less-than-top-end SACD out of a
dealers hands for a weekend.
Nousaine
....all snipped except for level matching section.....
>
>A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
>testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted testing
>that one more isn't going to make a difference.
This is not true. All humans display a tendency to interpret small
differences in level as changes in quality. IMO level-matching is a
largely ignored problem with ALL evaluative listening. In fact, it's
probably the single MOST important factor in open listening too.
>But if you're going to
>the trouble of blind testing, you really need to match levels
>carefully. And that's more complicated than simply switching between
>line-level inputs on your preamp. It's manageable, but it requires a
>little more care than I suspect the *average* sighted listener
>exhibits.
It's been said, usually in jest, that one way to match levels is to
adjust the gain of one device until the differences disappear. It
often works.
Stewart Pinkerton
I don't seem to recall *ever* having discussed this from an 'ivory
tower' perspective. Au contraire, my arguments are essentially based
on the principle that, if you don't believe what I say, go ahead and
try the experiment for yourself. I find it fascinating that those who
scream loudest that we should 'trust our ears', turn out to be the
least willing to do this in the real world.
Stewart Pinkerton
>PRACTICALITIES
>
>Let's talk practicality.
OK, let's.
> 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.
You seem to have applied little thought to the experiment. One need
only have an assistant willing to interchange components as required,
the randomising being done by coin flip. Hardly rocket science, and
certainly requiring no additional equipment.
>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.
Excuse me? Did you not previously say that your preferred system
requires *weeks* of accumulated 'gestalt' experience to determine
which component is better? Please try to apply the same rules to both
sides of the argument............
>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.
Yup, it's a useful intermediate stage, although the more dislocation
between yourself and the switcher that can be arranged, the better.
>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.
Ah, you remember Siegfried Duray-Bito? :-)
>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.
Unfortunately, the available evidence suggests that not one single
person on the planet possesses this mythical ability.......
>Whew! Too much training as an economist, I guess.... :-)
That really says it all. When was the last time that two economists
agreed on next years's GDP?
>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.
Well, not really, since there is a boatload of readily reproducible
evidence that sighted listening is useless for the discrimination of
subtle sonic differences. Thanks for playing.......
Nousaine
Yipes it seems you are trying very hard to make such a process more difficult
than it need be. Randomization requires nothing more than a coin to flip.
>However, the more overwhelming fact, as you point out, is that any
>dbt is tedious,
I will disagree; procedures that increase your knowledge can be fun. If sighted
listening is entertaining so is blind listening because they are the same thing
soundwise. If you want to say that evaluative listening is tedious I won't
disagree but I won't say that sighted listening is less so.
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.
Why not practice the method in advance and become efficent. It only takes a
time or two. And a single/double blind test takes only about 2-hours; even less
when you get a bit of practice.I'd suggest that you try it Harry. I'll help you
when you're ready.
>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?
There's no additional cost unless you pay the outside party or, better yet, buy
a QSC ABX box for a one-time $600 charge. For people who are tempted by $100 a
meter cables 6-bills might be a really low cost overall system resource
channeler.
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.
I'd say that the 'cost' of buying a pair of PASS monoblocks from a store in
Florida for $14k to replace your Yamaha integrated amplifier is sp great that a
$600 pacifier is cheap in comparison.
>Let me illustrate this by practical example.
Make sure you remember mine :)
>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.
Then if money is no object that why NOT buy a QSC box? $600 for image
protection? What's to decide?
>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.
Sure. But there's little increase in effort or cost required.
>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.
Why rely on sighted listenig alone if sound quality is important to you. AFAICS
the only reason to avoid controlled listening is if you don't really want to
know.
>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.
But how does one know how well he can control his bias unless he reads the
relevant research (why hasn't he done so already) and/or conducted a blind test
to verify? After all much bias is held subconsciously and not directly known.
Actually the difference in probablity is huge when one steps from bias
controlled listening to open evaluations when you are talking about sound
quality differences.
>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.
No the issue isn't complicated at all. It's about how important isolating sound
quality from the myriad other internal and external influences that surround
equipment selection. The legion of arguments that try to make it seem like
choosing a national defense policy look to me like a smoke screen.
BTW, Bayesian methods simply apply estimated probabilities to elements in a
decision tree. It's a very good technique but I personally haven't seen useful
application in the context of equipment selection.
>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.
You mean:
Very Wealthy/Strong ego
Very Wealthy/Weak ego
Impecunious/ Making Big Dollar purchase
Pretty artificial. Good way to lead thread off subject in clever way.
Mark me as:
Financially Stable/ Sound Quality Fanatic with highly developed BS Detector
Steven Sullivan
: In article <a6ivcr$ajl$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
Here's how Harry et al are using the word 'practically' IMO:
'Practically' speaking, lots of people believe that if they play certain
numbers in the Lotto, they'll have a better chance of winning.
'Practically' speaking', some people believe that wearing copper bands
will alleviate arthritis.
For these people to 1) do the math or b) conduct a controlled test of the
copper-band cure, is 'impractical'.
That others *have* done the math and the tests, and shown both beliefs to
be utterly unsupported, apparently does not trump 'practicality'.
GRL
skip sbt and live with sighted."
Actually a fellow with loads of bucks and a sturdy ego and any interest in
the truth at all, would love to check his opinion against a DBT or even a
SBT with no fear at all of the outcome. A sturdy ego can withstand its owner
being proven wrong in an opinion with no problem at all. It's the fragile
ego that will resist anything that might dash a preconceived notion. That
and the fellow with the monetarally vested interest, of course.
- GRL
" It's good to want things. "
- Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, Visual Basic programmer)
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a6im5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Arny Krueger
DBT vs. SBT vs. Sighted Testing.
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a6im5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> PRACTICALITIES
> Let's talk practicality. Double blind tests, as you point out, are
> tedious and require detailed record keeping
So do single blind tests.
>Since randomized a-b comparators are not available for rent,
Randomized a-b comparators are available for free. They are
given-away at www.pcabx.com. That kinda kicks the dickens out of
anybody's business plan to sell or rent them!
> 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.
This methodology would apply equally to single or double blind tests.
> 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.
This requirement applies equally to single or double blind tests.
> Dealers are loathe to loan equipment for
> more than one day (usually Saturday close to Monday).
This requirement applies to any listening test that you do in your
own home.
> 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.
This requirement applies to any listening test, because the listening
part always takes time to do right.
> Blind a-b testing is also difficult, but not nearly so much.
So far Harry, you've failed to come up with any unique requirement
that applies only to DBTs. They all also apply to blind tests and the
most time-consuming of them (the time it takes to actually listen)
applies to any listening test.
<snip Harry's anti-DBT analysis, since the points the analysis is
based on are 100% not unique to DBTs.>
Bob Marcus
Assume a naive audiophile with a basic system: CD player, integrated
amp, and speakers. He's thinking of upgrading the CDP, but he's read
somewhere that they all sound the same, and he wants to know for sure
that he's not wasting his money. So he borrows the new unit and plugs
it into another line input on his amp.
He now needs some way to check levels. Is his Radio Shack SPL meter
good enough for that? He also needs a way to match levels, and there's
a good chance neither CD player allows him to control its output. He
could mark a spot on his volume control for each CDP, so that whoever
is doing th switching can also adjust the volume each time. This
strikes me as rather inexact. Is it good enough? What would it take,
short of a $600 ABX comparator?
I ask this because most of the ABX/DBT defenders here are rather more
technically adept and undoubtedly better equipped than the typical
consumer audiophile. The latter could use a little practical advice.
(And if they got it, they might be more willing to take up the
challenge to give blind testing a try!)
Richard D Pierce
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce <DPi...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>:>Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
>:>to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
>:>protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
>:>perspective for a change.
>
>: And when AT LEAST TWO of those who you accuse of "speaking
>: esoterically from an ivory tower" have said REPEATEDLY over the
>: years that for individuals making THEIR OWN listening choices,
>: ANY means THEY choose to make THEIR decisions is perfect FOR
>: THEM, why is that not an equally practical, real world
>: perspective?
>
>Here's how Harry et al are using the word 'practically' IMO:
>
>'Practically' speaking, lots of people believe that if they play certain
>numbers in the Lotto, they'll have a better chance of winning.
>'Practically' speaking', some people believe that wearing copper bands
>will alleviate arthritis.
>
>For these people to 1) do the math or b) conduct a controlled test of the
>copper-band cure, is 'impractical'.
And, for ANY individual, if they want to use copper bands, who
the hell am I to stop them from their chosen excercises in
futility? It's their money, their choice.
>That others *have* done the math and the tests, and shown both beliefs to
>be utterly unsupported, apparently does not trump 'practicality'.
Again, why should I or anyone else be in the thankless job of
protecting people from their own ansurdities?
THat's not the point. I could give two sh*ts what MKuller or the
Elmir or anyone else listens to or how they chose what they
listen to. It's NOBODY's business BUT THEIRS.
No, that's NOT what JJ, I and others are agruing about.
It's when these people decide that THEIR choice is tantamount to
universal ohysical truth, when they choose make broad statements
about the principles of what constitutes reasonable testing
methodlogies for determining differences (NOT proeferences)
based on auditory stimuli alonene that the issues arise.
Look at the beginning of MUCH of these threads: contrary to the
blatant misrepresentation of some, they DO NOT start as someone
expressing a preferences and then someone else claiming that
only DBT's can be used for determining preference. That's an
out-and-out lie.
No, these threads OFTEN start by someone simply declaring that
one method or another is invalid. And that someone, more often
than not has NO experience in testing , NO experience in
auditory principles, and so on.
People like JJ and myself SIMPLY DO NOT CARE what people choose
to listen to or why. That's THEIR choice and THEIR CHOICE
ALONE. Why do people like Ludovic continually LIE about that?
Why?
The argument is about his and others continual and (now,
apparently, given the number of times he's been corrected) fully
intentional dishonesty, his lame excuses about memory
notwithstanding.
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
:>Richard D Pierce <DPi...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:>:>Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
:>:>to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
:>:>protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
:>:>perspective for a change.
:>
:>: And when AT LEAST TWO of those who you accuse of "speaking
:>: esoterically from an ivory tower" have said REPEATEDLY over the
:>: years that for individuals making THEIR OWN listening choices,
:>: ANY means THEY choose to make THEIR decisions is perfect FOR
:>: THEM, why is that not an equally practical, real world
:>: perspective?
:>
:>Here's how Harry et al are using the word 'practically' IMO:
:>
:>'Practically' speaking, lots of people believe that if they play certain
:>numbers in the Lotto, they'll have a better chance of winning.
:>'Practically' speaking', some people believe that wearing copper bands
:>will alleviate arthritis.
:>
:>For these people to 1) do the math or b) conduct a controlled test of the
:>copper-band cure, is 'impractical'.
: And, for ANY individual, if they want to use copper bands, who
: the hell am I to stop them from their chosen excercises in
: futility? It's their money, their choice.
I'm not talking preference. I'm talking about
the 'practicality' of doing blind tests as a reason for dismissing them
(or discussion of them, or advocacy of them).
:>That others *have* done the math and the tests, and shown both beliefs to
:>be utterly unsupported, apparently does not trump 'practicality'.
: Again, why should I or anyone else be in the thankless job of
: protecting people from their own ansurdities?
You are not required to. I do think, though, that the *audiophile press*
(and the audio manufacterers) would be performing a useful service if, like the
medical community, they conducted their own controlled tests and
published the results. In other words, if they had some scientific
standards.
: THat's not the point. I could give two sh*ts what MKuller or the
: Elmir or anyone else listens to or how they chose what they
: listen to. It's NOBODY's business BUT THEIRS.
: No, that's NOT what JJ, I and others are agruing about.
I think you have missed my point. I am arguing simply with the
idea that 'practicality' is a valid reason to diss DBT/ABX. I
doubt you or JJ hold to that opinion.
It *is* impractical for people at home to perform most science.
But that's an *absurd* reason to argue that we therefore shouldn't
strive for scientific standards, when they available.
Yet *that* seems to be the line Harry and Mike are (now) taking.
: Look at the beginning of MUCH of these threads: contrary to the
: blatant misrepresentation of some, they DO NOT start as someone
: expressing a preferences and then someone else claiming that
: only DBT's can be used for determining preference. That's an
: out-and-out lie.
I know.
: No, these threads OFTEN start by someone simply declaring that
: one method or another is invalid. And that someone, more often
: than not has NO experience in testing , NO experience in
: auditory principles, and so on.
I know.
: People like JJ and myself SIMPLY DO NOT CARE what people choose
: to listen to or why. That's THEIR choice and THEIR CHOICE
: ALONE. Why do people like Ludovic continually LIE about that?
I don't know; I have my suspicions.
Bob Marcus
Yes, and it all depends on what you want to know. If you really want
to know whether two units sound different, an ABX test is your best
bet. (It's too easy to assume that two units sound different even when
you don't know what they are.) But if all you want to do is decide
which you like better--without being influenced by manufacturer
reputations, reviews, visual aesthetics, etc.--AB is all you need. You
weren't specific in your original post about what the goal of these
comparisons would be.
> > A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
> > testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted testing
> > that one more isn't going to make a difference. But if you're going to
> > the trouble of blind testing, you really need to match levels
> > carefully. And that's more complicated than simply switching between
> > line-level inputs on your preamp. It's manageable, but it requires a
> > little more care than I suspect the *average* sighted listener
> > exhibits.
> >
>
> Yep, agree although I guess I'm not as purist as some others as to
> how this is done. Here again is an area for more discussion...we
> touched on it once a few months ago but not since.
>
> > Also, Harry opined that a millionaire with a big ego might settle for
> > sighted testing, as would someone confident in his ability to block
> > out biases. I would suggest that those two things are very closely
> > related. It takes a big ego to believe you're good at something that
> > humans seem pretty consistently programmed to be bad at.
> >
>
> Again, the thing with the Bayesian approach is...it doesn't matter so
> long as the person making the decision can live with the "cost" of
> being wrong.
If you're just after preference, there is no wrong, of course. I
presume by "wrong," you mean, "wasted money on something that sounds
no different than a much cheaper alternative."
Arny Krueger
> > Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
> > to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
> > protocols. It's nice to see someone put it all in a practical, real world
> > perspective for a change.
> That's because the agenda of many (not all) DBT critics seems to be to
> discredit the findings of DBTs, rather than to challenge their
> practicality for the average consumer.
This is ironic since literally thousands of consumers have used DBTs
to study the audible differences between audio products at
www.pcabx.com. It's a fact, and it's a fact that DBT critics seem to
ignore on RAHE, day after day.
>But I certainly agree it's nice
> to take it from a different angle, for a change.
> A couple of observations: First, DBT is better than SBT, but there are
> ways to reduce the danger that the tester in a SBT influences the
> testee. First, use your wife, not a friendly audiophile, because she
> won't have a stake in the outcome. (Just don't tell her what the two
> units cost, or she will certainly try to queer the results!)
I'm sitting here trying to figure out what kind of wife won't be able
to make an educated guess about what they cost? Obviously it isn't
one that balances the checkbook or pays the charge card bills! With
more than 50% of all wives working and contributing economically to
the household, it is hard for many of them not to know.
There is also a slight matter called Wife Acceptance Factor. The cost
of audio gear to a decor-conscious wife is not just economic, after
all.
Furthermore there is another cost to a spouse, and that is loss of
companionship while said spouse *fiddles with the stereo* hour after
all.
normanstrong
differences in quality, then it should be possible to shift a
subject's preference from one unit to another by simply changing
volume slightly. If this can easily be done, it speaks volumes about
the differences in equipment.
--
Norm Strong
Seattle WA
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message >
Arny Krueger
news:a6ivcr$ajl$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
> to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
> protocols.
This is a very strange comment since many comments in the large
pro-DBT group on RAHE come from people who are speaking practically
about the same procedures and protocols that end-users are using
every day to judge real-world audio products at www.pcabx.com.
Nousaine
Actually a voltmeter and a Test CD with sine waves are much better.
Compare voltages at the speaker terminals. The problem with a Radio
Shack SPL is that matching levels acoustically is far more dicey than
comparing the drive at the speaker.
>He also needs a way to match levels, and there's
>a good chance neither CD player allows him to control its output. He
>could mark a spot on his volume control for each CDP, so that whoever
>is doing th switching can also adjust the volume each time. This
>strikes me as rather inexact. Is it good enough?
Generally no. However many cd players have variable output levels in
addition to digital. If one has a headphone jack an adjustable output
can be obtained there. Alternatively an attenuator in line with the
louder one can be used.
>What would it take,
>short of a $600 ABX comparator?
>
>I ask this because most of the ABX/DBT defenders here are rather more
>technically adept and undoubtedly better equipped than the typical
>consumer audiophile. The latter could use a little practical advice.
>(And if they got it, they might be more willing to take up the
>challenge to give blind testing a try!)
Have at it. Good questions BTW.
Arny Krueger
> nab...@earthlink.net (Bob Marcus) wrote:
>
> ....all snipped except for level matching section.....
>
> >
> >A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
> >testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted
testing
> >that one more isn't going to make a difference.
> This is not true. All humans display a tendency to interpret small
> differences in level as changes in quality. IMO level-matching is a
> largely ignored problem with ALL evaluative listening. In fact,
it's
> probably the single MOST important factor in open listening too.
Here's an interesting quote:
http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?190
Martin Colloms wrote:
"Slight errors in channel balance, either in specific frequency
ranges or in overall level, can subtly disturb one's opinion of the
sharpness of stereo focus. Statistically well-controlled testing has
not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity but also
that of level differences as little as 0.2dB. These differences may
be of octave or several-octave bandwidth, with a sensitivity of a
similar magnitude. The subjective responses to variations in
amplitude/frequency response are pretty well documented; the careful
reviewer bears these constantly in mind. For example, less than
0.5dB-5%-of treble lift in the 3-10kHz range can give rise to a
mildly increased sense of immediacy, transparency, and liveliness
without necessarily being directly obvious as treble lift. A similar
degree of loss in the 150Hz-400Hz range can make a vocalist appear
lightweight and lacking in power in the fundamental range, lending a
crisper quality to the sound. This might be preferred on one
recording but disliked on another."
Regrettably, there is a lot of umm "speculative" stuff in the balance
of the article, but this paragraph looks very factual to me.
Howard Ferstler
> It's been said, usually in jest, that one way to match levels is to
> adjust the gain of one device until the differences disappear. It
> often works.
You can do this with a pink-noise input and switch back and forth and
back and forth repeatedly until the two components sound identical -
assuming of course that they will indeed sound identical once the
levels are matched. You would, of course, do one channel at a time
during this process. That should get the levels matched close enough
for workable results when then going on to do A/B comparing with
music.
If the pink-noise set up cannot get the levels perfectly matched, but
can get them extremely close, it is likely that the two components do
indeed sound different. OK, that is pretty obvious. However, even
then, assuming reasonable closeness in setting up that way, musical
comparisons may fail to highlight differences.
Howard Ferstler
Steven Sullivan
: "Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:a6jfv...@enews3.newsguy.com...
:> nab...@earthlink.net (Bob Marcus) wrote:
:>
:> ....all snipped except for level matching section.....
:>
:> >
:> >A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
:> >testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted
: testing
:> >that one more isn't going to make a difference.
:> This is not true. All humans display a tendency to interpret small
:> differences in level as changes in quality. IMO level-matching is a
:> largely ignored problem with ALL evaluative listening. In fact,
: it's
:> probably the single MOST important factor in open listening too.
: Here's an interesting quote:
: http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?190
: Martin Colloms wrote:
: sharpness of stereo focus. Statistically well-controlled testing has
: not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity
can anyone here provide a reference for this claim?
Mkuller
>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.
On second thought, your whole paradigm falls apart unless one is
convinced that DBTs are the appropriate test to use in determining
differences between audio components. As we see, those folks have
their own very strong opinions about DBT vs SBT, etc., regardless of
your analysis. For the rest of us who are skeptical about DBTs used
here, none of this really matters, now does it...
[ And it looked like we might have been getting somewhere. :( -- deb ]
Regards,
Mike
Nousaine
>
>Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>: "Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
>: news:a6jfv...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>:> nab...@earthlink.net (Bob Marcus) wrote:
>:>
>:> ....all snipped except for level matching section.....
>:>
>:> >
>:> >A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
>:> >testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted
>: testing
>:> >that one more isn't going to make a difference.
>
>:> This is not true. All humans display a tendency to interpret small
>:> differences in level as changes in quality. IMO level-matching is a
>:> largely ignored problem with ALL evaluative listening. In fact,
>: it's
>:> probably the single MOST important factor in open listening too.
>
>: Here's an interesting quote:
>
>: http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?190
>
>: Martin Colloms wrote:
>
>: sharpness of stereo focus. Statistically well-controlled testing has
>: not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity
>
>can anyone here provide a reference for this claim?
>
>--
>
> -S.
Such is only true under non-reverberant condtions (typically
headphones) with special test signals. Dick Greiner, who has
conducted the most detailed exploration of polariy, once told me that
no one has ever heard absolute polarity in a normally reverberant
environment. So I guess the answer is "nope."
Harry Lavo
I deliberately left it open, but most of my testing is a-b, first because it
is simpler, and second because I am usually interested primarily in
preference, particularly preference strong enough to make me want to replace
what i already have.
> > > A real problem is level-matching. That's not a problem in sighted
> > > testing, because there are so many sources of bias in sighted testing
> > > that one more isn't going to make a difference. But if you're going to
> > > the trouble of blind testing, you really need to match levels
> > > carefully. And that's more complicated than simply switching between
> > > line-level inputs on your preamp. It's manageable, but it requires a
> > > little more care than I suspect the *average* sighted listener
> > > exhibits.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, agree although I guess I'm not as purist as some others as to
> > how this is done. Here again is an area for more discussion...we
> > touched on it once a few months ago but not since.
> >
> > > Also, Harry opined that a millionaire with a big ego might settle for
> > > sighted testing, as would someone confident in his ability to block
> > > out biases. I would suggest that those two things are very closely
> > > related. It takes a big ego to believe you're good at something that
> > > humans seem pretty consistently programmed to be bad at.
> > >
> >
> > Again, the thing with the Bayesian approach is...it doesn't matter so
> > long as the person making the decision can live with the "cost" of
> > being wrong.
>
> If you're just after preference, there is no wrong, of course. I
> presume by "wrong," you mean, "wasted money on something that sounds
> no different than a much cheaper alternative."
>
Presumably. Or maybe sounds worse to you in the long run?
Harry Lavo
news:a6lbo4$34t$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
How carefully do you read, Arnie? I'm talking degrees.....degrees. I think
I made that clear. A dbt abx is complex, a sbt abx is complex but less so
(no comparator needed), a dbt a-b test is different than but probably about
as complex as the sbt abx, a single blind a-b test is the least complex.
My point is that within practical constraints, the latter is a lot more
feasible, seems to me, than the former. And then as the rest of my post
points out, you have to weigh what is gained in going up in completxity and
difficulty.
> <snip Harry's anti-DBT analysis, since the points the analysis is
> based on are 100% not unique to DBTs.>
>
Willing it away doesn't make it so, Arnie. :-{
Harry Lavo
Well, actually Mike, this is one of the places I might disagree with you.
As the discussion unfolds, I think you'll see that feeling other forms of
evaluation give a good or better handle simply reduce the marginal utility
of even a sbt test to zero. So one would not bother. The paradigm doesn't
fall apart...it just fails to justify any move up the "testing ladder"
Perhaps we should add another stage to the Bayesian analysis? Monadic
testing vs. sighted comparative testing?
GRL
two components to answer the simple question: do these two things sound the
same or not -- the DBT. Does not matter which component is prettier, more
expensive, has a better manufacturers reputation, etc. Only thing that
matters is do the two sound different.
On the other hand you've got your "sighted" comparison that just absolutely
invites bias both intentional and unintentional (hey, we're human)
preconceived and not.
If you're interested in just finding which component you "like" better,
hell, the sighted test is better since the concept of "like" includes looks,
pride-of-ownership, bragging rights, confirmation of pre-conceived notions,
ego massage by the salesman, etc., etc. Oh yeah, sound, too.
If you're interested in not what you like, but whether two things sound the
same or not, there is (other than in pretty gross cases like speakers or a
defective vs. non-defective electronics component) nothing to replace a DBT
or at least a SBT.
It's so obvious I can't believe there is anything to discuss about it. And
yet the discussions go on and on and on.
Sheeeeesh!
- GRL
" It's good to want things. "
- Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, Visual Basic programmer)
"Mkuller" <mku...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a6lv6...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Bob Marcus
Yes. Just today I read that 60% of purchases at big-box electronics
stores are made by women. So your wife is probably on to you. Maybe
your illegal alien nanny?
Harry Lavo
news:a6jl5a$1ip$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Now that you have vented, Steve, I am waiting for your practical
example for doing a dbt abx test at home. Here's the case:
"I'm an audiophile who thinks maybe my 20yo ss preamp and power amp
has been bypassed in transparency. I've managed to cadge a loaner of
the new "super-see-through-solid-state-be-all-and-end-all Integrated"
from my dealer that has sounded teriffic in his showroom. But I can
have it only for the weekend. Tomorrow is my six-year-olds final
soccer game, so from 3:00pm to 6:00pm I'm going to be tied up for
sure. I've now got the amp in my hands. I'm out the door. It's
5:30pm Saturday evening."
Please design a rigorous, practical abx test for this situation.
Show me exactly how I should configure my rig, do the switching,
control and record the randomness, record the results, evaluate the
results, and OBTW, maybe sneak in an hour or two or three of "just
listening" to my favorite non-test disks just to begin to get a
"gestalt feel" for the unit in my system.
I'm waiting.....
Notice I made it easy. I didn't mention that I'm a practicing
Christian! :-)
Harry Lavo
news:a6lb1n$2e7$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> "If I were a very wealthy audiophile with a sturdy ego, I could easily
> skip sbt and live with sighted."
>
> Actually a fellow with loads of bucks and a sturdy ego and any interest in
> the truth at all, would love to check his opinion against a DBT or even a
> SBT with no fear at all of the outcome. A sturdy ego can withstand its
owner
> being proven wrong in an opinion with no problem at all.
Yep, and it can also withstand the pressure to "prove" that a
decision is rationale and right. In other words to say, "this is
what I hear, and this is how I hear it, and I feel no compulsive need
to "prove" it too myself."
>It's the fragile
> ego that will resist anything that might dash a preconceived notion. That
> and the fellow with the monetarally vested interest, of course.
>
Don't disagree with this....it's an alternative to "proving that my
choice was right".
Ergo, combined with the above, you can't tell whether those resisting
are doing it from the standpoint of a strong ego, or a weak ego.
Likewise, the person testing may have a strong ego, or a weak ego.
This is one of the weaknesses of my example, and I was waiting for
someone to pick up on it. Congratulations!
But it's interesting to examine what other factors may be at work:
For example, if I'm a musician I may have absolutely no need or
interest to know anything except what sounds right to me when
listening to a couple of pieces of gear. If I'm an engineer or a
scientist, I may have an overwhelming need to have a rational
understanding of the comparison. Again, in the first cae their is
little or nothing to be gained in marginal utility from fancier
testing. And in the latter, there may be a lot of professional
identity on the line....in other words, a large "cost" from being
wrong.
The cost can be ego, identity, financial outlay, forgone opportunity
cost (eg the piece I just sold to my brother in law and now wish I
had back), and probably others you can think of.
>>snip, remainder not relevant to the above<<
Harry Lavo
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
> >: Here's an interesting quote:
> >
> >: http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?190
> >
> >: Martin Colloms wrote:
> >
> >: sharpness of stereo focus. Statistically well-controlled testing has
> >: not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity
> >can anyone here provide a reference for this claim?
> Such is only true under non-reverberant condtions (typically
> headphones) with special test signals. Dick Greiner, who has
> conducted the most detailed exploration of polariy, once told me that
> no one has ever heard absolute polarity in a normally reverberant
> environment. So I guess the answer is "nope."
Strong statement. Under what test conditions, Tom?
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Bob Marcus" <nab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:a6lh7...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:<a6jfv...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>> > BTW, what you are describing is a single blind a-b-x. A single-blind
>> > A-b would be just identifying which was which, without knowing
>> > whether a or b was chosen first. But you probably know that
>> > already. <grin>
>>
>> Yes, and it all depends on what you want to know. If you really want
>> to know whether two units sound different, an ABX test is your best
>> bet. (It's too easy to assume that two units sound different even when
>> you don't know what they are.) But if all you want to do is decide
>> which you like better--without being influenced by manufacturer
>> reputations, reviews, visual aesthetics, etc.--AB is all you need. You
>> weren't specific in your original post about what the goal of these
>> comparisons would be.
>>
>I deliberately left it open, but most of my testing is a-b, first because it
>is simpler, and second because I am usually interested primarily in
>preference, particularly preference strong enough to make me want to replace
>what i already have.
One slight snag with that, Harry. How can you establish *preference*,
before you have established a *difference*? You seem to be presuming
that everything sounds different, which is a bit of a giveaway!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Harry Lavo
>
> > Double blind tests, as you point out, are
> >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.
>
> only have an assistant willing to interchange components as required,
> the randomising being done by coin flip. Hardly rocket science, and
> certainly requiring no additional equipment.
>
First, Stewart, that's single blind, not double blind abx testing.
Secondly, I live alone and like to be able to test (sometimes)
without other people present.
Thirdly, the folks close to me who are the most likely and available
"assistants" have no interest in audio per se and therefore short
attention spans.
> >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.
>
> Excuse me? Did you not previously say that your preferred system
> requires *weeks* of accumulated 'gestalt' experience to determine
> which component is better? Please try to apply the same rules to both
> sides of the argument............
>
You are absolutely right, and that is why I can't think of when I've
ever made a decision on quick testing along. But when I have done
such testing I've usually had to do it within the space of a Saturday
night through a Sunday night.
> >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.
>
> Yup, it's a useful intermediate stage, although the more dislocation
> between yourself and the switcher that can be arranged, the better.
>
Or a very honest switcher, and one who keeps their back turned.
> >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.
>
> Ah, you remember Siegfried Duray-Bito? :-)
>
> >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.
>
> Unfortunately, the available evidence suggests that not one single
> person on the planet possesses this mythical ability.......
>
We've been through this before. The "available evidence" argument
has been thrown at me, but so far not one test has been presented
showing that one MUST be swayed by size, build quality, cost,
reputation, or any of the things you claim we audiophiles fall prey
to, unless one is simply lied to.
> >Whew! Too much training as an economist, I guess.... :-)
>
> That really says it all. When was the last time that two economists
> agreed on next years's GDP?
>
Ya Got Me There. That's one reason I left my economics in the ivory
tower and joined the real world as a businessman.
> >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.
>
> Well, not really, since there is a boatload of readily reproducible
> evidence that sighted listening is useless for the discrimination of
> subtle sonic differences. Thanks for playing.......
>
Again, how about emptying the boatload on the dock, where we can
examine the entrails...... :-)
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
Bob Marcus <nab...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<a6lh7...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> "Bob Marcus" <nab...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:a6jc2...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> > ways to reduce the danger that the tester in a SBT influences the
>> > testee. First, use your wife, not a friendly audiophile, because she
>> > won't have a stake in the outcome. (Just don't tell her what the two
>> > units cost, or she will certainly try to queer the results!)
>> I'm sitting here trying to figure out what kind of wife won't be able
>> to make an educated guess about what they cost? Obviously it isn't
>> one that balances the checkbook or pays the charge card bills! With
>> more than 50% of all wives working and contributing economically to
>> the household, it is hard for many of them not to know.
Yeah, I missed that one. The only way I got my spouse out of
my listening room was to buy her a pretty decent midrange stereo
herself. Of course, that was primarily to get her listening
preferences out, her presence is quite welcome. Now both kids
like to listen, too. Anyone got a house for sale with four
good listening rooms :) ??
>Yes. Just today I read that 60% of purchases at big-box electronics
>stores are made by women. So your wife is probably on to you. Maybe
>your illegal alien nanny?
And just what-all was that supposed to mean?
--
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.
Mkuller
>>
>> Statistically well-controlled testing has
>>: not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity
>>
>Such is only true under non-reverberant condtions (typically
>headphones) with special test signals. Dick Greiner, who has
>conducted the most detailed exploration of polariy, once told me that
>no one has ever heard absolute polarity in a normally reverberant
>environment. So I guess the answer is "nope."
Is that the same Dick Greiner who is (or was) one of Howard
Ferstler's colleagues at Sensible Sound? Many people are sensitive
to absolute polarity. Many others don't seem to be. It is subtle,
but once you recognize it, it is difficult to listen to music that is
sucking when it should be blowing. Have you read the "Wood Effect"?
If Martin Collums says that statistically well-controlled trials have
confirmed it, then I would tend to believe it's really there... You
are free to believe your "expert".
Regards,
Mike
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:a6lbo4$34t$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > Topic:
> > DBT vs. SBT vs. Sighted Testing.
> > "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:a6im5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > > PRACTICALITIES
> > > Let's talk practicality. Double blind tests, as you point out, are
> > > tedious and require detailed record keeping
> > So do single blind tests.
Harry seems to agree that whether you do a SBT or a DBT, you have do
record-keeping.
> > >Since randomized a-b comparators are not available for rent,
> > Randomized a-b comparators are available for free. They are
> > given-away at www.pcabx.com. That kinda kicks the dickens out of
> > anybody's business plan to sell or rent them!
Harry seems to have no explanation for why he ignores the fact that
ABX Comparators are available to everybody for free.
> > > 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.
> > This methodology would apply equally to single or double blind tests.
Again no specific rebuttal from Harry. I guess that means he agrees.
> > > 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.
I don't think that ever Harry has streamlined the listening test
business to the point where it doesn't require careful listening.
> > This requirement applies equally to single or double blind tests.
> > > Dealers are loathe to loan equipment for
> > > more than one day (usually Saturday close to Monday).
> > This requirement applies to any listening test that you do in your
> > own home.
Harry can't deny that, now can he?
> > > 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.
> >
> > This requirement applies to any listening test, because the listening
> > part always takes time to do right.
> >
> > > Blind a-b testing is also difficult, but not nearly so much.
> >
> > So far Harry, you've failed to come up with any unique requirement
> > that applies only to DBTs. They all also apply to blind tests and the
> > most time-consuming of them (the time it takes to actually listen)
> > applies to any listening test.
> How carefully do you read, Arnie?
Better than other people seem to think, Harry!
> I'm talking degrees.....degrees. I think
> I made that clear.
Harry, what your comments made clear is a lack of appreciation for
the practicalities of doing a SBT.
>A dbt abx is complex,
No its not. A DBT is a SBT with a curtain drawn around the person who
makes the changes.
> a sbt abx is complex but less so (no comparator needed),
No comparator is required for doing a DBT.
>a dbt a-b test is different than but probably about as complex as
>the sbt abx,
There is no such thing as a DBT a-b test because you have to have an
unknown "x" or it's not a blind test.
> a single blind a-b test is the least complex.
There is no such thing as a SBT a-b test because you have to have an
unknown "x" or it's not a blind test.
> My point is that within practical constraints, the latter is a lot more
> feasible, seems to me, than the former.
There is no logical support for this claim. Furthermore, the claim is
based on a logical impossibility being blind tests with no unknowns.
> And then as the rest of my post
> points out, you have to weigh what is gained in going up in
> completxity and difficulty.
But the problem is Harry, your point is based on two logical
impossibilities and underappreciation of the almost complete symmetry
between a SBT and a DBT.
> > <snip Harry's anti-DBT analysis, since the points the analysis is
> > based on are 100% not unique to DBTs.>
> Willing it away doesn't make it so, Arnie. :-{
That would be my advice to you, Harry.
In fact a DBT and a SBT are identical except that in the SBT a bit
more is visible about the identity of the unknown. You've got the
same problems - lining up the equipment, picking the program
material, keeping records and analyzing he results, you name it!
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
>For the rest of us who are skeptical about DBTs used
>here, none of this really matters, now does it...
Skepticism comes from an informed position, not a position of
sheer disbelief coupled with a willingness to ignore all of the
evidence.
Do not call yourself skeptical, nor yourself a skeptic.
I know quite a few people who would find that very offensive.
I'm sure you wouldn't much care, though.
John Feng
> Most of the discussion regarding this issue from the small pro-DBT group seems
> to come from people in an ivory tower speaking esoterically about research
> protocols.
Mike,
Minor quibbles. Why do you say ivory tower when JJ, Arny, Dick, etc
all talk about real world applications. Sure, sometimes I refer to
laboratory work as an example, but you know that's largely because
I don't know a single company in the USA that will freely share
market research and product design information (as one get's from
DBT's of hearing preference).
As far as DBT's being research protocols, of course they are.
But, that doesn't preclude them from being the bread and butter tools
of market research and product evaluation in mainstream industry
(which they are). The reason you don't seem many mainstream industry
DBT users posting here is they probably haven't the time and aren't
allowed to post technical stuff in a chat group like this.
John
jj, DBT thug and skeptical philalethist
GRL <GLitw...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>If you're interested in just finding which component you "like" better,
>hell, the sighted test is better since the concept of "like" includes looks,
>pride-of-ownership, bragging rights, confirmation of pre-conceived notions,
>ego massage by the salesman, etc., etc. Oh yeah, sound, too.
>If you're interested in not what you like, but whether two things sound the
>same or not, there is (other than in pretty gross cases like speakers or a
>defective vs. non-defective electronics component) nothing to replace a DBT
>or at least a SBT.
>It's so obvious I can't believe there is anything to discuss about it. And
>yet the discussions go on and on and on.
Well, yes. When people start accepting the fact that DBT's
work for accurately determining differences due solely to
auditory stimulii, instead of ranting, raving, and posturing
about reasons they 'don't work', reasons that not only contradict
the present data, but that would require people to behave differently
in simple conversation, well, then we'll not have much discussion.
I've quite lost count of how many times I've said that for determining
one's own personal preference, the rule is simple, use what you
prefer.
None the less, we see the constant straw man of "everyone must
use ABX testing" or DBT testing, we see the lie of "ABX testing
has never shown a difference" (based on entirely specious readings
that demand better than journal quality from one side, and trivial
anecdote from the other), and so on.
That, as far as I'm concerned, is what the fight is about. Both
Mike and Wood have, at this time, made professional accusations
of a most serious sort, without either evidence or a willingness
to back up their accusations, and at the same time tried to
keep up a deceptive posture of the "high ground".
When people stoop to false professional accusations, it's
way beyond the line of decency.
Donald Pearce
I think the answer here, Harry is that you have to make some choices.
Obviously you can't set up a rigorous test, so you can either return the
stuff to the shop, thank them kindly and explain that you don't have time
right now, or you can audition it and hope you have made the right
choice. But be prepared to find out later that you have blown money on
something that is no better than what you have.
Of course, there may be a great deal about this new stuff that you prefer
apart from the sound - the look, the number of inputs, controls etc. etc.
They are all valid parameters of comparison and must be considered. The
fact that it is new and you fancied a change is also in there. All of
those things can and will feature in your choice - and quite properly
too. Sound, though is something else.
The differences between the sounds of high-end gear are small. We must
take this as a given if we are calling the gear high-end. So if your
judgement is not to be overwhelmed by all this other stuff going on
around your senses, you have to go to some lengths to shut it all out.
That means some kind of blind test.
Of course it is equally valid to simply do the sighted test and
rationalise whatever reasoning you like out of your preference.
What isn't valid, of course, is to then state that A sounds better than B
as a result. That would be an objective extrapolation too far.
d
--
Don Pearce
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Stewart Pinkerton
>"I'm an audiophile who thinks maybe my 20yo ss preamp and power amp
>has been bypassed in transparency. I've managed to cadge a loaner of
>the new "super-see-through-solid-state-be-all-and-end-all Integrated"
>from my dealer that has sounded teriffic in his showroom. But I can
>have it only for the weekend. Tomorrow is my six-year-olds final
>soccer game, so from 3:00pm to 6:00pm I'm going to be tied up for
>sure. I've now got the amp in my hands. I'm out the door. It's
>5:30pm Saturday evening."
>
>Please design a rigorous, practical abx test for this situation.
No sweat if, like me, you are a *real* audiophile (also being an
engineer doesn't hurt), and have the requisite gear on hand. Takes me
less than three hours on average for this kind of evaluation. Of
course I do believe in its value, and can set it up quickly and
analyse the sound quickly, because I have already bought into the
principle and have plenty of practice.
>Show me exactly how I should configure my rig, do the switching,
>control and record the randomness, record the results, evaluate the
>results, and OBTW, maybe sneak in an hour or two or three of "just
>listening" to my favorite non-test disks just to begin to get a
>"gestalt feel" for the unit in my system.
>
>I'm waiting.....
Interesting case note, Harry. Please reconcile this with your
previously stated absolute requirement of being able to relax into the
'gestalt experience' for a few weeks before being able to make any
kind of reasoned determination of sound quality................
It's only polite to apply the same rules to *both* sides of the
argument - heck, you might even gain some credibility!
Mkuller
>I've quite lost count of how many times I've said that for determining
>one's own personal preference, the rule is simple, use what you
>prefer.
This is not just about you, jj. Sorry, you may think you're the only
pro-DBT advocate who posts here, but a few others (Arnie, Nousaine,
Pinkerton, for example) insist on DBTs for everyday audiophiles
comparing components.
>None the less, we see the constant straw man of "everyone must
>use ABX testing" or DBT testing, we see the lie of "ABX testing
>has never shown a difference" (based on entirely specious readings
>that demand better than journal quality from one side, and trivial
>anecdote from the other), and so on.
>
>That, as far as I'm concerned, is what the fight is about. Both
>Mike and Wood have, at this time, made professional accusations
>of a most serious sort, without either evidence or a willingness
>to back up their accusations, and at the same time tried to
>keep up a deceptive posture of the "high ground".
While you have an interesting, mostly self-serving intrepratation of
these discussions, you appear to be missing key portions of it. I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have other things on
your mind...
>When people stoop to false professional accusations, it's
>way beyond the line of decency.
>
I'm in complete agreement with you here. They should not be
tolerated. Where are those "false professional accusations" you're
refering to.
I'm all in favor of decency, civility, a kinder tone and less
defensiveness to these discussions. How about you?
[ Both sides need to keep this in mind when making posts. It sure
would help the moderators. -- deb ]
Regards,
Mike
Richard D Pierce
>>jj wrote:>
>>I've quite lost count of how many times I've said that for determining
>>one's own personal preference, the rule is simple, use what you
>>prefer.
>
>This is not just about you, jj. Sorry, you may think you're the only
>pro-DBT advocate who posts here, but a few others (Arnie, Nousaine,
>Pinkerton, for example) insist on DBTs for everyday audiophiles
>comparing components.
Would you please care to cite the specific examples of where
these three said explicitly that they insist that everyday
audiophiles require DBT's for comparing comparing components.
Not paraphrases, not summaries, but real, actual quotes from
THEIR posts?
Please?
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Harry Lavo
Again, Stewart, you seem to assume we are all sheep. I am perfectly capable
of saying "I can hear no difference and I have no preference".
What is your hang-up?
Harry Lavo
Well, a new debating tactic. Make a ridiculous statement, and if I
choose to ignore it, then claim I am agreeing with you. Great,
Arnie. Did it ever occur to you that I might have other things to do
than a point by point rebuttal? Accordingly I wrapped it all in a
summary, because I disagreed with *ALL* of your statements. And I
assumed others were discerning enough to evaluate some of the
individual statement flaws on their own.
Second, Arnie. A single blind test...the subject doesn't know what
is playing. A double blind test, nobody knows whats playing. You
don't need "x" to do a double blind test. You need "x" to do an abx
test. There most certainly is a thing as a single-blind a-b test.
For a person who goes on and on about testing, you are revealing a
fundamental lack of understanding of testing techniques.
Nousaine
You are not familiar with Greiner's work? Dick is, now retired, a
professor of electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin.
In the late 80s and early 90s he conducted detailed investigation
into absolue polarity including making his own recordings to that the
polarity of every stpe in the chain could be known and verified. He
published a couple pieces in Audio about it back then.
It is his findings that absolute polarity can be demonstrated with
headphones and in anechoic chambers but in a normally reverberant
environment it gets completely scrambled. Further, even anechoically,
the affect is relatively subtle with the classic test tones it is
much more difficult with music.
Harry Lavo
news:a6o5nu$n3s$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>snipping Steve's vent, as it is not relevant to the following exchange<
> > Now that you have vented, Steve, I am waiting for your practical
> > example for doing a dbt abx test at home. Here's the case:
> >
> > "I'm an audiophile who thinks maybe my 20yo ss preamp and power amp
> > has been bypassed in transparency. I've managed to cadge a loaner of
> > the new "super-see-through-solid-state-be-all-and-end-all Integrated"
> > from my dealer that has sounded teriffic in his showroom. But I can
> > have it only for the weekend. Tomorrow is my six-year-olds final
> > soccer game, so from 3:00pm to 6:00pm I'm going to be tied up for
>
> I think the answer here, Harry is that you have to make some choices.
> Obviously you can't set up a rigorous test, so you can either return the
> stuff to the shop, thank them kindly and explain that you don't have time
> right now, or you can audition it and hope you have made the right
> choice. But be prepared to find out later that you have blown money on
> something that is no better than what you have.
>
You are missing the point. Steve says my practicalities are "bogus"
and that I simply should never let them get in the way of rigorous
home blind abx testing. So I'm asking him to design such a test that
I can execute in the real world of audiophile-dom.
> Of course, there may be a great deal about this new stuff that you prefer
> apart from the sound - the look, the number of inputs, controls etc. etc.
> They are all valid parameters of comparison and must be considered. The
> fact that it is new and you fancied a change is also in there. All of
> those things can and will feature in your choice - and quite properly
> too. Sound, though is something else.
>
In this case I have said specifically that I am intersted only in
"increased transparency" , which is the sole reason I am considering
in my trusty 20 year old gear. I've actually made it easy for
steve...I'm focused almost exclusively on the sound. ABX heaven.
> The differences between the sounds of high-end gear are small. We must
> take this as a given if we are calling the gear high-end. So if your
> judgement is not to be overwhelmed by all this other stuff going on
> around your senses, you have to go to some lengths to shut it all out.
> That means some kind of blind test.
>
Well, I thought I heard that greater transparency in the store, and
now I have a chance in my home system. How do I test it?
> Of course it is equally valid to simply do the sighted test and
> rationalise whatever reasoning you like out of your preference.
>
Not according to Steve. And for now, I'm accepting his POV. So I
want him to design the test.
> What isn't valid, of course, is to then state that A sounds better than B
> as a result. That would be an objective extrapolation too far.
>
As I said, for now I am accepting his POV. Where's the test?
Nousaine
>>>: Martin Colloms wrote:
>>>
>>> Statistically well-controlled testing has
>>>: not only confirmed the audibility of absolute phase/polarity
>>>
>>Tom Nousaine wrote:>
>>Such is only true under non-reverberant condtions (typically
>>headphones) with special test signals. Dick Greiner, who has
>>conducted the most detailed exploration of polariy, once told me that
>>no one has ever heard absolute polarity in a normally reverberant
>>environment. So I guess the answer is "nope."
>
>Is that the same Dick Greiner who is (or was) one of Howard
>Ferstler's colleagues at Sensible Sound?
Yup. Although Dick was at that time Chairman of the EE Department at the
University of Wisconsin as well.
Many people are sensitive
>to absolute polarity. Many others don't seem to be. It is subtle,
>but once you recognize it, it is difficult to listen to music that is
>sucking when it should be blowing. Have you read the "Wood Effect"?
Oh Christ. I have a copy that was personally autographed by that nutcase Clarke
Johnson. The Wood Effect is a joke. Did you know that it was self-published by
Johnson?
I think that many people "think" they hear absolute polarity but no on has ever
demonstrated that it's an issue.
As for the sucking and blowing idea that was one issue that Greiner addressed
directly with a special experiment. He placed a person with a large double
sided drum (you know those kinds in marching bands) that could be struck on
either side on the 50 yard line of a football field.
Next they had blindfolded listeners, one at a time, stand to one side of the
drum and decide which side was hit. Interestingly people were unable to
reliably tell which standing about 10-feet away.
>If Martin Collums says that statistically well-controlled trials have
>confirmed it, then I would tend to believe it's really there... You
>are free to believe your "expert".
>
>Regards,
>Mike
Find the reference and tell us abput the research.
KikeG
>
> It's so obvious I can't believe there is anything to discuss about it. And
> yet the discussions go on and on and on.
>
Yeah, I agree very much with your post. I can't believe how some
people auto-considered audiophile or supposedly interested in sound
spend so much energy and time posting in Usenet and none in doing a
good SBT or DBT, just for curiosity, or to verify for example whether
they are biased or not. I think most of them are afraid of what the
results may be, and prefer to ignore it and remain in their safe
self-confidence of their listening ability and well worth spent money
on expensive gear.
About bias, it's surely something you CAN'T control absolutely no
matter how much you want or try, because most of the times there is an
inconscious bias you can't get rid of (as some posters in RAO say, whe
are humans, not machines).
And about the masking effect of blind tests, I think this actually may
happen depending on the listener, because you lose the confidence that
sight gives, and this can make you nervous and less sensitive. But
you can adress this unsensitivity caused by stress trying not to be
afraid of the results (problem for some egos), taking your time to do
it if you need it, and getting used with this kind of test. But apart
from this type of unsensitivity I think there is nothing that can
differ in a blind test from a sighted test that can cause any other
kind of masking effect, the procedure can be exactly the same as is
sighted tests, in any way you want, but blind (and level matched)
instead of sighted.
I have showed myself that I can't distinguish between some different
audio gear, but I still prefer good enough quality in some of this
gear even if I can't distinguish it from a supossed lesser quality
gear, but it's just because it gives me more confidence and I feel
safer and more comfortable with it. But you won't hear me saying that
blind tests are useless or that one sounds better than the other,
because I can't prove it to my self.
These are some of my opinions about these issues, and not absolute
facts in any way. Sorry about any possible mistakes but english is not
my native language.
Stewart Pinkerton
I try not to assume, I observe and draw conclusions from the evidence
presented...........
> I am perfectly capable
>of saying "I can hear no difference and I have no preference".
So, *have* you ever done this?
>What is your hang-up?
No hang-up, simply an observation that, for you to say that you are
interested primarily in preference, makes the presumption that there
is a *difference* to hear. The rest of us are here to tell you that
such differences are often illusory and exist only inside your head,
not in the real physical world.
Without using DBTs, you will never know if your 'preference' is based
on sound quality, or on other factors.
Donald Pearce
> "Donald Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:a6o5nu$n3s$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > In article <a6o28...@enews4.newsguy.com>, harry...@rcn.com says...
>
> >snipping Steve's vent, as it is not relevant to the following exchange<
>
> > > Now that you have vented, Steve, I am waiting for your practical
> > > example for doing a dbt abx test at home. Here's the case:
> > >
> > > "I'm an audiophile who thinks maybe my 20yo ss preamp and power amp
> > > has been bypassed in transparency. I've managed to cadge a loaner of
> > > the new "super-see-through-solid-state-be-all-and-end-all Integrated"
> > > from my dealer that has sounded teriffic in his showroom. But I can
> > > have it only for the weekend. Tomorrow is my six-year-olds final
> > > soccer game, so from 3:00pm to 6:00pm I'm going to be tied up for
> >
> > I think the answer here, Harry is that you have to make some choices.
> > Obviously you can't set up a rigorous test, so you can either return the
> > stuff to the shop, thank them kindly and explain that you don't have time
> > right now, or you can audition it and hope you have made the right
> > choice. But be prepared to find out later that you have blown money on
> > something that is no better than what you have.
> >
>
> You are missing the point. Steve says my practicalities are "bogus"
> and that I simply should never let them get in the way of rigorous
> home blind abx testing. So I'm asking him to design such a test that
> I can execute in the real world of audiophile-dom.
>
formal test. You are demanding a method to tie a two foot piece of string
to tie round a four foot tree.
> > Of course, there may be a great deal about this new stuff that you prefer
> > apart from the sound - the look, the number of inputs, controls etc. etc.
> > They are all valid parameters of comparison and must be considered. The
> > fact that it is new and you fancied a change is also in there. All of
> > those things can and will feature in your choice - and quite properly
> > too. Sound, though is something else.
> >
>
> In this case I have said specifically that I am intersted only in
> "increased transparency" , which is the sole reason I am considering
> in my trusty 20 year old gear. I've actually made it easy for
> steve...I'm focused almost exclusively on the sound. ABX heaven.
>
OK. For transparency, we can try this without double blind. All you need
to be able to do is set up for the same level - I presume you have a CD
with a test tone, and a meter?
Get hold of a small boom box, and put a spoken word cassette in it - one
you have never heard, and preferably random word lists, which you can get
somebody to speak for you. Put it between your speakers. Now with music
playing on the main system, turn the boom box down to the point where it
is almost inaudible. Write down the words as you hear them for a few
minutes. You can score how many you got right later. Do the same for the
other amplifier system
The more transparent of the two will let you hear the boom box better
behind the music.
Easy!
Stewart Pinkerton
>>jj wrote:>
>>I've quite lost count of how many times I've said that for determining
>>one's own personal preference, the rule is simple, use what you
>>prefer.
>
>This is not just about you, jj. Sorry, you may think you're the only
>pro-DBT advocate who posts here, but a few others (Arnie, Nousaine,
>Pinkerton, for example) insist on DBTs for everyday audiophiles
>comparing components.
Nice try Mike, but I have certainly not said this, and I agree with
JJ. Please try to stick to the truth.
>>None the less, we see the constant straw man of "everyone must
>>use ABX testing" or DBT testing, we see the lie of "ABX testing
>>has never shown a difference" (based on entirely specious readings
>>that demand better than journal quality from one side, and trivial
>>anecdote from the other), and so on.
>>
>>That, as far as I'm concerned, is what the fight is about.
Agreed, the fight is indeed about one side remaining rational, and the
other side erecting strawmen in lieu of substantive arguments.
>> Both
>>Mike and Wood have, at this time, made professional accusations
>>of a most serious sort, without either evidence or a willingness
>>to back up their accusations, and at the same time tried to
>>keep up a deceptive posture of the "high ground".
>
>While you have an interesting, mostly self-serving intrepratation of
>these discussions, you appear to be missing key portions of it. I'll
>give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have other things on
>your mind...
Noted that claimed 'key portions' are not specified, for self-serving
reasons. I'll assume that you have other things on your mind.....
>>When people stoop to false professional accusations, it's
>>way beyond the line of decency.
>>
>I'm in complete agreement with you here. They should not be
>tolerated. Where are those "false professional accusations" you're
>refering to.
>
> I'm all in favor of decency, civility, a kinder tone and less
>defensiveness to these discussions. How about you?
>
>[ Both sides need to keep this in mind when making posts. It sure
> would help the moderators. -- deb ]
Well, all we're asking for is the use of rational argument, rather
than lies and distortions by people making false claims about what
others have said. Of course, if one side doesn't actually *have* any
rational arguments, then things become clearer!
Pasi Keinänen
> 1. Will everything sound bad so long as I keep the Rotal pre-amp?
You have try and find out it for yourself, I'm afraid. Your hearing
is yours. Nobody can give you the truth on this matter, except you.
> 2. Can I get a great sounding dvd/cd player or should I buy separates?
Yes you can, but IMHO really great sounding DVD ones (e.g. Ayre DVD
1) are quite expensive (several thousand US dollars).
A good DVD-A / DVD-player costs much less though. Something like
Panasonic DV-RA71 will give you quite good DVD-A, moderate CD
playback and better interlaced video for dvds than anything out there
I know of (excluding some really expensive boutique dvd-players and
home theater pcs).
If you want a combination of good sound and good dvd, you can also
try a separate CD player. Some good inexpensive ones (IMHO of course)
are Cambridge Audio, Arcam and Creek models. Cambridge audio being
clearly the cheapest.
You will have to go out and get a few home demos to hear them (or
others) yourself.
There really isn't any shortcut to audio nirvana, IMHO. You have to
do the legwork yourself.
> 3. Can you recommend a good cd or dvd player for under $1k?
For non-progressive, chroma upsampling bugfree DVD with DVD-A
combined:
Panasonic DVD-RA 71 is an ok player
For good cd-audio only playback (better than the above Panasonic
IMHO):
Sony SCD-XB 940 QS (EUro model, discounted to €300 - also plays SACD)
Cambridge Audio D-500SE cd player
But really, there are tons of choices out there depending on what your
dealers stock.
Go out, listen to a couple of ones. Take two home and decide.
You'll probably be much happier that way, enjoying more music
compared to if you just bought the best player give in this newsgroup
:)
best of luck!
Harry Lavo
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:01:22 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.179.106
X-Complaints-To: business...@verizon.com
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1016064082 141.154.179.106 (Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:01:22 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:01:22 EST
Precedence: list
Resent-From: rec-audio...@usa.alcatel.com
"Stewart Pinkerton" <ste...@pinkertons.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6ojbe$ol$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> writes:
>
> >"I'm an audiophile who thinks maybe my 20yo ss preamp and power amp
> >has been bypassed in transparency. I've managed to cadge a loaner of
> >the new "super-see-through-solid-state-be-all-and-end-all Integrated"
> >from my dealer that has sounded teriffic in his showroom. But I can
> >have it only for the weekend. Tomorrow is my six-year-olds final
> >soccer game, so from 3:00pm to 6:00pm I'm going to be tied up for
> >sure. I've now got the amp in my hands. I'm out the door. It's
> >5:30pm Saturday evening."
> >
> >Please design a rigorous, practical abx test for this situation.
>
> No sweat if, like me, you are a *real* audiophile (also being an
> engineer doesn't hurt), and have the requisite gear on hand. Takes me
> less than three hours on average for this kind of evaluation. Of
> course I do believe in its value, and can set it up quickly and
> analyse the sound quickly, because I have already bought into the
> principle and have plenty of practice.
>
Great, Stewart. Then perhaps you will undertake to answer the
following request:
> >Show me exactly how I should configure my rig, do the switching,
> >control and record the randomness, record the results, evaluate the
> >results, and OBTW, maybe sneak in an hour or two or three of "just
> >listening" to my favorite non-test disks just to begin to get a
> >"gestalt feel" for the unit in my system.
> >
> >I'm waiting.....
>
> Interesting case note, Harry. Please reconcile this with your
> previously stated absolute requirement of being able to relax into the
> 'gestalt experience' for a few weeks before being able to make any
> kind of reasoned determination of sound quality................
>
Simple Stewart. This is not how *I* test. Steve has challenged my
assertion that rigorous double blind abx testing in the home is
impractical...so I'm describing a practical scenario ...and asking
him how he would design a test under these practical conditions.
Since, Stewart, you've already said you'd do it within three
hours.... it would fit within this scenario's time frame. That's a
start. So don't just tell us you'd do it. Instead, contribute
creatively to the group. Describe the system set up please. The
number of people involved. The types of sources you'd use to test
transparency. The information recorded...when and how. The
techniques used to blind and double blind the experiment. And then
apply it this scenario.
> It's only polite to apply the same rules to *both* sides of the
> argument - heck, you might even gain some credibility!
>
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm suspending my normal approach and
I'm accepting Steve's challenge to always do dbt abx testing. I'm
asking him to show me, in practical terms under this
far-from-outlandish scenario how he would do it.
And now I'm asking you the same.