|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 24, 2016 13:43:38 GMT -5
Is the difference worthwhile, if you can't reliably spot it? You say yes, I say no. I think that's really where we are all dissagreeing. How often you can spot the difference should be an indicator to you on how important it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 13:44:40 GMT -5
So there's a difference. Do you choose the component you like better or you've convinced yourself is more "accurate" whatever that means? A positive double blind test doens't tell you which one is better. Just which one there is a difference. I suggest picking the gear that sounds better to you after using it as you normally would if the differences are worthwhile to you. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 13:46:34 GMT -5
Is the difference worthwhile, if you can't reliably spot it? You say yes, I say no. I think that's really where we are all dissagreeing. How often you can spot the difference should be an indicator to you on how important it is. I do spot the difference.  Not like one every 30 times. But consistently in real world use. But I don't score positive in a DBT. That's what I'm trying to say. A null isn't a negative and that's not the same conclusion that I've imagined the difference. It just doesn't PROVE there is a difference (using the test). The wording is subtle but important. The function of a DBT is if it shows a positive then you've PROVED a difference reasonably scientifically. But not the other way around. You haven't been disproved. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Dec 24, 2016 13:46:42 GMT -5
That's my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Dec 24, 2016 13:53:02 GMT -5
Then how about this:
Live with each DAC for whatever period of time you need one at a time. A week, a month, whatever it takes to learn those subtle differences that differentiate the three. You would know which one you were listening at any given time. Then have someone put one of the three back into your system and again listen to it for whatever time you need. But this time you would not know which one you were listening to. Would you be able to identify which one it was? 100% of the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 13:57:30 GMT -5
Then how about this: Live with each DAC for whatever period of time you need one at a time. A week, a month, whatever. You would know which one you were listening at any given time. Then have someone put one of the three back into your system and again listen to it for whatever time you need. But this time you would not know which one you were listening to. Would you be able to identify which one it was? 100% of the time? The chance of identifying it would be higher. But not necessarily a given. But what does that say if you don't. Does that mean all the times you were listening and heard the difference was your brain being deluded. Was it? 100% of the time you were using it? It's easy to say of course! Your brain was deluded by pretty looks / all the cash you spent. It could. But it doesn't mean it is so. Which one was correct? You closed your eyes and the answer is different. So your brain is to fault. Or is it...? What if you closed your eyes for a week or a month and not knew what DAC it was. But then you open your eyes and then start identifying different differences. Which one is the correct result? Would you go with your sighted result or your blind result. What if you go with the blind result (which happened to score say last place in the sighted)....and you find it still scores last place as time goes on with your eyes open? Would you still stick with the blind result while listening with your eyes open? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Dec 24, 2016 14:14:11 GMT -5
Then how about this: Live with each DAC for whatever period of time you need one at a time. A week, a month, whatever. You would know which one you were listening at any given time. Then have someone put one of the three back into your system and again listen to it for whatever time you need. But this time you would not know which one you were listening to. Would you be able to identify which one it was? 100% of the time? The chance of identifying it would be higher. But not necessarily a given. But what does that say if you don't. Does that mean all the times you were listening and heard the difference was your brain being deluded. Was it? 100% of the time you were using it? It's easy to say of course! Your brain was deluded by pretty looks / all the cash you spent. It could. But it doesn't mean it is so. Which one was correct? You closed your eyes and the answer is different. So your brain is to fault. Or is it...? What if you closed your eyes for a week or a month and not knew what DAC it was. But then you open your eyes and then start identifying different differences. Which one is the correct result? Would you go with your sighted result or your blind result. What if you go with the blind result (which happened to score say last place in the sighted)....and you find it still scores last place as time goes on with your eyes open? Would you still stick with the blind result while listening with your eyes open? So there is NO way you could reliably identify any of the DACs simply by listening? Yet you claim to be able to identify audible differences and assign them to each DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 24, 2016 14:14:23 GMT -5
Well howzabout this - just listen to the gear and pick whatever sounds best to you, blind or not blind. If it sounds good and you can afford it, then just make it easy and buy it. Why go through all these gyrations. Just have confidence in your own judgement.  And even if you think you can't do that because you'll always wonder if you made the right decision, just realize that if you're that type of person, then no matter what you do, you'll always be second guessing yourself. And then you'll have to try and select a psychiatrist and will wind up obsessing over the right criteria for choosing one and after you choose one you'll be second guessing him or her, too.  Thing is, there is a place for DBT and valid reasons for conducting them but audio ought to be a hobby to enjoy, not get hives over. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 24, 2016 14:27:38 GMT -5
The chance of identifying it would be higher. But not necessarily a given. But what does that say if you don't. Does that mean all the times you were listening and heard the difference was your brain being deluded. Was it? 100% of the time you were using it? It's easy to say of course! Your brain was deluded by pretty looks / all the cash you spent. It could. But it doesn't mean it is so. Which one was correct? You closed your eyes and the answer is different. So your brain is to fault. Or is it...? What if you closed your eyes for a week or a month and not knew what DAC it was. But then you open your eyes and then start identifying different differences. Which one is the correct result? Would you go with your sighted result or your blind result. What if you go with the blind result (which happened to score say last place in the sighted)....and you find it still scores last place as time goes on with your eyes open? Would you still stick with the blind result while listening with your eyes open? So there is NO way you could reliably identify any of the DACs simply by listening? Yet you claim to be able to identify audible differences and assign them to each DAC. That makes sense... if you say you can reliably hear differences between devices, then you ought to be able to attribute them to specific devices because those differences should have a consistency of character. If not, then it's sort of like random differences in which case how can you decide which one you like best? Actually I have the answer to my question - you pick the one that sounds best to you. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Dec 24, 2016 14:27:43 GMT -5
Im going to weigh in now, ie; put my two cents in. Do different DACs sound different? Yes, can I tell them apart 100%, no or I seriously doubt it. Does it make a difference to me? No. Which DAC is most pleasing to MY ð EARS over any extended period of time. Which brings me the most joy without drawbacks. Does one give me a headache after or during a listening session? Get rid of it, no matter the price. Price? My ears don't know what that means! Pleasure to my ears is what matters most, price is another matter. Ive listened to gear that make a difference in how the system sounds, some other gear, not so much. there it is! My  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 24, 2016 14:28:37 GMT -5
Im going to weigh in now, ieput my two cents in. Do different DACs sound different? Yes, can I tell them apart 100%, no or I seriously doubt it. Does it make a difference to me? No. Which DAC is most pleasing to MY ð EARS over any extended period of time. Which brings me the most joy without drawbacks. Does one give me a headache after or during a listening session? Get rid of it, no matter the price. Price? My ears don't know what that means! Pleasure to my ears is what matters most, price is another matter. Ive listened to gear that make a difference in how the system sounds, some other gear, not so much. there it is! My View AttachmentJust think... all the time we spent debating this we could have been listening to something! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 14:32:08 GMT -5
The chance of identifying it would be higher. But not necessarily a given. But what does that say if you don't. Does that mean all the times you were listening and heard the difference was your brain being deluded. Was it? 100% of the time you were using it? It's easy to say of course! Your brain was deluded by pretty looks / all the cash you spent. It could. But it doesn't mean it is so. Which one was correct? You closed your eyes and the answer is different. So your brain is to fault. Or is it...? What if you closed your eyes for a week or a month and not knew what DAC it was. But then you open your eyes and then start identifying different differences. Which one is the correct result? Would you go with your sighted result or your blind result. What if you go with the blind result (which happened to score say last place in the sighted)....and you find it still scores last place as time goes on with your eyes open? Would you still stick with the blind result while listening with your eyes open? So there is NO way you could reliably identify any of the DACs simply by listening? Yet you claim to be able to identify audible differences and assign them to each DAC. Do you mean scientifically and reliably? As you can tell I'm not really thrilled with DBT being able to identify subtle differences or the practicalities with the training required and time. So I don't have a way for you to do that scientifically. But if you mean how do you identify audible differences and assign the differences etc....I do it by listening to them. I try not to come to snap judgments. I take time and listen to them. I personally encourage listening to the DACs or gear or what have you. Don't go around second guessing every little thing you do as being delusions from a giddy brain. Not saying it doesn't happen. Subjective listening comes inherent with subjective flaws. But it's the method I reccomend. If I listened to DBT, I'd have to conclude that every piece of gear simply sounded the same. In that case... My gear would be a $30 Behringer UCA 202. Connected to a $10 receiver I bought from B'zilla at a garage sale. It measures flat. I would connect it to my Axioms because DBT does show audible differences in speakers. Having heard a 10 watt amp perform admirably, I know that the 50 watt receiver has more than enough power for me. My setup would cost $50 in electronics and a $1250 speaker. My bank account would be much happier. Except I don't hear that way. I hear differences in electronics and realize meaningful gains from some of them - not necessarily related to price. And I find my audio listening more satisfying and more enjoyable. But...if your experience matches with DBT testing then STOP spending money! You are in a great position to enjoy audio in a very affordable way. Pair the cheapest electronics that don't make a difference to you with whatever appropriate speakers that sound best within your budget. Spend a bit more on looks if that stuff floats your boat or don't. Win and enjoy! |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Dec 24, 2016 14:35:29 GMT -5
Im going to weigh in now, ieput my two cents in. Do different DACs sound different? Yes, can I tell them apart 100%, no or I seriously doubt it. Does it make a difference to me? No. Which DAC is most pleasing to MY ð EARS over any extended period of time. Which brings me the most joy without drawbacks. Does one give me a headache after or during a listening session? Get rid of it, no matter the price. Price? My ears don't know what that means! Pleasure to my ears is what matters most, price is another matter. Ive listened to gear that make a difference in how the system sounds, some other gear, not so much. there it is! My Just think... all the time we spent debating this we could have been listening to something!  |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Dec 24, 2016 14:38:42 GMT -5
So there is NO way you could reliably identify any of the DACs simply by listening? Yet you claim to be able to identify audible differences and assign them to each DAC. Do you mean scientifically and reliably? As you can tell I'm not really thrilled with DBT being able to identify subtle differences or the practicalities with the training required and time. So I don't have a way for you to do that scientifically. But if you mean how do you identify audible differences and assign the differences etc....I do it by listening to them. I try not to come to snap judgments. I take time and listen to them. I personally encourage listening to the DACs or gear or what have you. Don't go around second guessing every little thing you do as being delusions from a giddy brain. Not saying it doesn't happen. Subjective listening comes inherent with subjective flaws. But it's the method I reccomend. If I listened to DBT, I'd have to conclude that every piece of gear simply sounded the same. In that case... My gear would be a $30 Behringer UCA 202. Connected to a $10 receiver I bought from B'zilla at a garage sale. It measures flat. I would connect it to my Axioms because DBT does show audible differences in speakers. Having heard a 10 watt amp perform admirably, I know that the 50 watt receiver has more than enough power for me. My setup would cost $50 in electronics and a $1250 speaker. My bank account would be much happier. Except I don't hear that way. I hear differences in electronics and realize meaningful gains from some of them - not necessarily related to price. And I find my audio listening more satisfying and more enjoyable. Let me ask it this way: Now that you have listened to them and have heard differences in them that you can identify, if one of them was put into your system could tell which one it was just by listening to whatever and for however long you needed? And could you do this for all three? |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 14:50:57 GMT -5
Do you mean scientifically and reliably? As you can tell I'm not really thrilled with DBT being able to identify subtle differences or the practicalities with the training required and time. So I don't have a way for you to do that scientifically. But if you mean how do you identify audible differences and assign the differences etc....I do it by listening to them. I try not to come to snap judgments. I take time and listen to them. I personally encourage listening to the DACs or gear or what have you. Don't go around second guessing every little thing you do as being delusions from a giddy brain. Not saying it doesn't happen. Subjective listening comes inherent with subjective flaws. But it's the method I reccomend. If I listened to DBT, I'd have to conclude that every piece of gear simply sounded the same. In that case... My gear would be a $30 Behringer UCA 202. Connected to a $10 receiver I bought from B'zilla at a garage sale. It measures flat. I would connect it to my Axioms because DBT does show audible differences in speakers. Having heard a 10 watt amp perform admirably, I know that the 50 watt receiver has more than enough power for me. My setup would cost $50 in electronics and a $1250 speaker. My bank account would be much happier. Except I don't hear that way. I hear differences in electronics and realize meaningful gains from some of them - not necessarily related to price. And I find my audio listening more satisfying and more enjoyable. Let me ask it this way: Now that you have listened to them and have heard differences in them that you can identify, if one of them was put into your system could tell which one it was just by listening to whatever and for however long you needed? And could you do this for all three? Maybe? It would be easier if it is one or the other. It would be easier than a DBT test. Probably closest to getting "objective" with my subjective listening style. It would hard for me to do so because it would mean my wife would have to figure out how to hook up audio component and cover it with a sheet for a month. And she's already told me "are you kidding me?" Then she'd have to adjust the volume as I wouldn't be able to look at the remote control and universal remotes are confusing. Also the cloth would block the remote in the first place. So there are practicalities for me...as well as the desire! I'm happy with how I listen. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 24, 2016 14:53:25 GMT -5
Is the difference worthwhile, if you can't reliably spot it? You say yes, I say no. I think that's really where we are all dissagreeing. How often you can spot the difference should be an indicator to you on how important it is. I do spot the difference. Not like one every 30 times. But consistently in real world use. But I don't score positive in a DBT. That's what I'm trying to say. A null isn't a negative and that's not the same conclusion that I've imagined the difference. It just doesn't PROVE there is a difference (using the test). The wording is subtle but important. The function of a DBT is if it shows a positive then you've PROVED a difference reasonably scientifically. But not the other way around. You haven't been disproved. Agreed, you haven't proved there is no difference. But again, it's an extremely strong indicator. Keep in mind, the lower your overall score in spotting a difference, the higher the probability that you didn't actually get the ones right that you thought you did. If your overall score is (say) 80% on spotting differences, then it's extremely likely there are differences and you are quite often picking them out. They are significant. If your overall score is (say) 20% on spotting differences, then it's a very high probability that you didn't spot any difference at all, you just guessed right a few times. That probability of getting lucky goes up as your overall score goes down. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 14:57:59 GMT -5
I do spot the difference. Not like one every 30 times. But consistently in real world use. But I don't score positive in a DBT. That's what I'm trying to say. A null isn't a negative and that's not the same conclusion that I've imagined the difference. It just doesn't PROVE there is a difference (using the test). The wording is subtle but important. The function of a DBT is if it shows a positive then you've PROVED a difference reasonably scientifically. But not the other way around. You haven't been disproved. Agreed, you haven't proved there is no difference. But again, it's an extremely strong indicator. Keep in mind, the lower your overall score in spotting a difference, the higher the probability that you didn't actually get the ones right that you thought you did. If your overall score is (say) 80% on spotting differences, then it's extremely likely there are differences and you are quite often picking them out. They are significant. If your overall score is (say) 20% on spotting differences, then it's a very high probability that you didn't spot any difference at all, you just guessed right a few times. That probability of getting lucky goes up as your overall score goes down. The closer you get to 50% probability, the closer your score is to somebody making a random guess. The other stuff is more statistical which I'll bow out of. I don't know enough of. Statistics aren't as cut and dry as they may appear to be. If your overall score is 20% then there is a high probability that there is a problem with the experiment or you if you are doing worse than random chance. Still doesn't tell you there isn't a difference in real world listening. A positive result PROVES there is a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Dec 24, 2016 15:02:03 GMT -5
. For this to happen in LMDB testing, the listener might have to hear the same material for weeks (or maybe even months) to learn what specific audible characteristics differentiated A from B. NOBODY wants to hear the same song over and over and over for that amount of time. I have the same problem with 'listeners' - or maybe I should say audiophools (not calling anyone here names!) - who sit for hours at a time listening for 'something' - 'anything' - that might indicate that brand A does 'something' that brand B does not. While many people in the world have a photographic memory there are very few that have an 'audiographic' (not an actual word - but should be!) memory. Which is why what you think you remember hearing may not be what I remember hearing. I remember when I was about 14-15 and just getting into music and had the money to buy LPs. Some of my friends would buy spin-off albums - groups that were unknown but cut LP's that mimicked the big groups of the day. I could tell almost immediately that it wasn't The Byrds singing and playing the music - most of my friends could not unless they listened very closely. Those groups were able to 'almost' mimic perfectly many of the big pop groups pretty good but it didn't fool me very often. Lots of people thought Terry Stafford was Elvis! While Stafford did sound very close to Elvis there was a distinct tone that each possessed that made them sound different. At any rate stating subjective findings as scientific is a nÅn sequitur. A properly operated DBX test can be scientific even if you do not. This argument is as old as the first radios ever made. You haven't presented anything new - your argument - such as it is - fails. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 24, 2016 15:06:00 GMT -5
knucklehead I would not present subjective listening as being scientific. There is no doubt about it, it is not. Subjective listening has inherent flaws in it like bias, and other factors. It also doesn't follow an accepted scientific method.. But I would argue against incorrect interpretations of a null result in DBT level matched listening tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 24, 2016 15:07:31 GMT -5
Personally I find DBT useful mostly because it removes the brand name biases and appearance preferences that often overpower the choices based on sound. I also like the ability to discard choices based purely on their sound, if I don't like how it sounds then it doesn't matter what it looks like or what brand it is. Isolating what I don't like is relatively easy but the reverse is harder for me, much harder.
Also single blind testing (SBT) is often useful in isolating issues, such as faulty components, those with not so obvious problems. Like one channel in a multi channel power amp, or a faulty interconnect, speaker cable etc. For example last week I helped out a guy who was absolutely certain, to the point of excluding everything else, that he had a speaker issue, So I physically swapped speakers around while he was out of the room, leaving everything else in place. On his return I asked him to identify the speaker with the problem. Different speaker, same everything else. So I put the speakers back in their original positions and swapped speaker cables, on his return he picked the errant speaker cable. I'm convinced that without the blind testing he would not have believed me and gone to great expense returning a perfectly functioning speaker.
To me DBT's and SBT's are useful in removing factors other than sound from the process and that makes them rather useful.
Merry Xmas to all
Gary
|
|
Not like one every 30 times. But consistently in real world use. 
