|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 24, 2016 17:33:59 GMT -5
Nothing I've seen in this thread has moved me one iota from my original post. None of us expected you to change your mind. We know you are stubborn. Mark I don't know about you, but I went to a garage sale the other day. They did a very scientific DBT in the front yard. Changed my world with regards to speaker and DAC testing. The guy had a white sheet and wires made from coat hangers even! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 17:35:30 GMT -5
The ones I have read and conducted all determine if there is a difference AND which one is preferred. So have mine.  But I didn't have to cajole my wife to switch in DACs. (Sorry, I'm just playing here. My wife left me long ago when I put in the room treatments. ). Sounds like my first wife. Back in the 70's, she was pissed when I spent $569 on a pair of Altec Lansing 846's (VOTT). She was thrilled when she spent way over a thousand on some Ethan Allen furniture.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 24, 2016 17:47:21 GMT -5
Count me among them. Not thousands of dollars, but certainly a fair amount!  Plus all the gear you have still hidden from Monku Wife out in the garage! But the gear inside the house only cost a total of about $55.  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 24, 2016 17:49:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 24, 2016 17:56:16 GMT -5
As to DACs, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the differences are about of the same magnitude as differences between speaker wires. The audible differences are small, and therefore NOT worth spending significant money on. Although I'll freely admit that for headphone listening, the differences may be more significant.
Moving your speakers an inch closer to each other will make (to my ears) greater differences than switching DACs. So I doubt that I'll change any minds with this, but it's where my conclusions are ending up.
YMMV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 18:03:15 GMT -5
Just 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. "Just have confidence in your own judgement." It has clearly been proven in the past that our brain and hearing can deceive us, even with our best of intentions and careful listeningo. In the case of A/B comparisons between like designed speakers most will consistantly choose the even slightly louder speaker. In these quick A/B comparisons it is essential to volume match both speakers to as close as 0.5dB's (or closer if possible), with a SPL meter like a RS meter which is more accurate than human hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Dec 24, 2016 18:29:58 GMT -5
Just 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. "Just have confidence in your own judgement." It has clearly been proven in the past that our brain and hearing can deceive us, even with our best of intentions and careful listeningo. In the case of A/B comparisons between like designed speakers most will consistantly choose the even slightly louder speaker. In these quick A/B comparisons it is essential to volume match both speakers to as close as 0.5dB's (or closer if possible), with a SPL meter like a RS meter which is more accurate than human hearing. This is one of my favorite 'tools' for audiophools!. It's called The McGurk Effect. And it is very real. Which is why I seldom do 'critical' listening. I like to live with a component for some time and make up my mind based on 2 or more weeks of casual listening. After all - I'm no critic! |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Dec 24, 2016 18:43:05 GMT -5
Harman (Revel, etc) has an elaborate "lab" with movable speaker surfaces plus an app/protocol for listening tests. Would this be considered DBT?    |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 19:30:45 GMT -5
You IMO are completely incorrect!....The one DAC review I have read that was blind was very controlled and confirmed that very few if any folks could distinguish high end DAC's... And that's EXACTLY what our "informal" test found. So why is the blind test valid but ours not? 100% balogna (please excuse my Italian). Exactly? Try going back and reading Garbulky's thread: Schiit Gunginr vs Emotiva Stealth DC-1 vs Emotiva PT-100. Tell me he did not post any sound differences (even slight). What about the midrange dynamic difference and effect from the room he mentioned to point out several. My reference blind DAC test found differences only with one headphone. Keep chasing your tail! |
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Dec 24, 2016 19:51:32 GMT -5
Double-blind testing may not be necessary but makes for a great thread topic on a Christmas eve day for the members of the Emotiva Lounge. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 24, 2016 21:09:26 GMT -5
Harman (Revel, etc) has an elaborate "lab" with movable speaker surfaces plus an app/protocol for listening tests. Would this be considered DBT? Dr. Floyd Toole would probably argue yes....and Sean Olive... One of many papers: www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6338 |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 24, 2016 22:13:08 GMT -5
...Tell me he did not post any sound differences (even slight). What about... OK - Let me rephrase it - No significant differences - In other words, nothing radical enough to be heard in the (flawed) double-blind test. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 22:20:56 GMT -5
...Tell me he did not post any sound differences (even slight). What about... OK - Let me rephrase it - No significant differences - In other words, nothing radical enough to be heard in the (flawed) double-blind test. Sorry Boom, I've tried really hard not to let your dog out of his cage!   |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 24, 2016 22:39:54 GMT -5
Chuckle, I think we're in different universes here - not just different countries. But that's OK - I still love you anyway!
Safe trip & happy holidays to you & Norika (sp.?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 22:47:10 GMT -5
...Tell me he did not post any sound differences (even slight). What about... OK - Let me rephrase it - No significant differences - In other words, nothing radical enough to be heard in the (flawed) double-blind test. So why then did he even mention in his thesis: the midrange dynamic difference and effect from the room plus a few other differences. Why even bring them up? Why with the very flawed DAC review, are you now trying to change the subject and attack blind tests with the old US Military diversionary tactic? Many blind tests are not flawed and can reveal minute sound differences. However, I don't think they are very practical for the average Lounge lizard. My own blind speaker tests in the past are quite valid IMO, I'll go back and see if I can find one. Unfortunately all the ones I posted here are long gone. However, please don't confuse DAC and wire/connector tests, etc. with speaker comparisons which in most cases the audible differences are immediately obvious to all but the clinically deaf. PS: When will you try my new improved Nut Test? Forget the double and triple blind test for now. It is very simple and can be a real ear opener. Just take a quick break from the flea market and garage sale tour. My test only takes an hour or two with simply having two DAC's connected. No wife's help, only a sheet or blindfold to hide which one is playing for the tested person. He simply has to walk in and sit in exactly the same spot. No volume matching or instantaneous switching. It's quite brilliantly simply. The Axiom's or Teckton's (?) are just fine. All is the same familiar gear which you are already very intimate with (now that of course was meant in a strictly audiophile technical way). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2016 22:51:17 GMT -5
Chuckle, I think we're in different universes here - not just different countries. But that's OK - I still love you anyway! Safe trip & happy holidays to you & Norika (sp.?) Thanks Boom from the Nut and Noriko! At least we are making some progress as I see you are now admitting you are from a different universe.  メリークリスマス Merīkurisumasu PS: When will you try my new improved Easy Blind Nut Test? |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 25, 2016 2:12:29 GMT -5
Harman (Revel, etc) has an elaborate "lab" with movable speaker surfaces plus an app/protocol for listening tests. Would this be considered DBT? No, this would be considered pictures of a DBT. Do you understand what I am saying to you? The problem with DBT is people can see how it's done and say hey, I could try this so they go ahead and download the famous ABX comparator from the internet and then they carefully level match their gear, after which they start to ABX it without knowing ANYTHING about auditory neuroscience / psychoacoustics. So when they see an inconclusive test result they see careful "proof" that differences are inaudible, but the reality is that such a test procedure has more than a few giant holes in it. All of which are biased towards "hearing no difference". The picture of hearing no difference is there to stay. The other side of the picture (the one that shows the giant holes) gets carefully thrown away. www.csicop.org/si/show/does_truth_matter_science_pseudoscience_and_civilization |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 25, 2016 2:38:36 GMT -5
@tllfkacn : I'm not sure what the question is. But maybe this will help. It was a non scientific test - which is pretty much all our tests. B'zilla and his better half visited us. We switched between DACs and told what we heard. There was nothing more complex than that. I said they were close but there were differences. A poor room setup or speaker placement will mask the differences. Not sure why that is controversial because you mention it several times.
However, where we differ is that B'zilla feeels the differences are not worth money. And for me... the answer is maybe to the right person - at least between the DC-1 and Gungnir multibit. Not necessarily for me. The Pt-100 and the DC-1...I would still get the DC-1. Though it was close.
The whole assumption is our subjective experiences are valid as being our subjective experiences. Sometimes subjective experience do involve things like emotions and feelings and mushy stuff like that. Hence things like "oh this was so musical!" What does that even mean, right? It means I am not a very good writer but it did get me a little giddy.
I personally always concede that subjective experiences have inherent weaknesses. So think of me as being able to hold two different thoughts on the same topic. Acknowledge weaknesses of subjectivity, but also find it to be the best method.
So pretty far removed from, "I heard something, I obviously fooled myself. I need to do this with my eyes closed 30 times while matching volumes." I'm not saying don't do it. I just don't do it. Knock ya self out if it makes you happy!
Also, this comes from how we experience audio. B'zilla and I have both heard differences in most electronics we listen to. This is not some new discovery to us. Neither of us gasped. Now there is a sizable portion of audio enthusiasts that don't hear differences. That's cool too man!
The Gungnir and the DC-1 I had in my system for an extended period of time. The PT-100 is the newcomer that we only got to briefly audition between the two. I suspect over extended periods, the differences of a DC-1 vs the PT-100 may tease themselves out to be more noticeable versus a first glance listen. But this was just a quick visit. The PT-100 has a sound that is cut from the same cloth as the DC-1 - which I don't recall saying about another piece of gear (like an XDA-2 or XDA-1). However, I wouldn't say it is its equal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2016 5:13:27 GMT -5
Forget the extended period of time with your DAC. If there is in fact a warm up period or burn in period (which I don't agree with, maybe a hour or so should be 55 minutes too long). Once you listen in a controlled manner you should come away with the same impressions now as 6 months from now. I don't have any questions except why all the changing your tune from one post to the next. Go back and read your posts again and see all the conflicting comments.
Will you try my new improved and very simple Nut Test?
It doesn't take long extended periods getting to know the DAC's! Forget the double and triple blind test for now. It is very simple and can be a real ear opener. My test only takes an hour or two with simply having two DAC's connected. No wife's help, no alcohol, only a sheet or blindfold to hide which one is playing for the tested person. He simply has to walk in and sit in exactly the same spot. No volume matching or instantaneous switching. It's quite brilliantly simply. The Axiom's or Teckton's (?) are just fine. All is the same familiar gear which you are already very intimate with (now that of course was meant in a strictly audiophile technical way).
I presume you and Boom will continue to ignore this method which I feel has a very logical and common sense approach. I do think it is great for folks here to conduct and post about comparison reviews. However, the Absolute Sound style of glowing and creative prose comments about hearing how one DAC interacts with the rooms acoustics, comments about midrange dynamics better in one and other similarly unbelievable sound difference claims about DAC's to me is purely imaginary. If you had some reasonably easy way to hide the identification of the products being compared then that would be a good start to have folks like me maybe start to take your reviews seriously. Comparisons in many fields are aware of the placebo effect which is similar to the reason why we need to not know the identity of the gear. As long as you review only products that you clearly can identify before your shootout, you will have lost most or all of my confidence in your conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Dec 25, 2016 5:53:43 GMT -5
Forget the extended period of time with your DAC. If there is in fact a warm up period or burn in period (which I don't agree with, maybe a hour or so should be 55 minutes too long). Once you listen in a controlled manner you should come away with the same impressions now as 6 months from now. I don't have any questions except why all the changing your tune from one post to the next. Go back and read your posts again and see all the conflicting comments. Will you try my new improved and very simple Nut Test? It doesn't take long extended periods getting to know the DAC's! Forget the double and triple blind test for now. It is very simple and can be a real ear opener. My test only takes an hour or two with simply having two DAC's connected. No wife's help, no alcohol, only a sheet or blindfold to hide which one is playing for the tested person. He simply has to walk in and sit in exactly the same spot. No volume matching or instantaneous switching. It's quite brilliantly simply. The Axiom's or Teckton's (?) are just fine. All is the same familiar gear which you are already very intimate with (now that of course was meant in a strictly audiophile technical way). I presume you and Boom will continue to ignore this method which I feel has a very logical and common sense approach. I do think it is great for folks here to conduct and post about comparison reviews. However, the Absolute Sound style of glowing and creative prose comments about hearing how one DAC interacts with the rooms acoustics, comments about midrange dynamics better in one and other similarly unbelievable sound difference claims about DAC's to me is purely imaginary. If you had some reasonably easy way to hide the identification of the products being compared then that would be a good start to have folks like me maybe start to take your reviews seriously. Comparisons in many fields are aware of the placebo effect which is similar to the reason why we need to not know the identity of the gear. As long as you review only products that you clearly can identify before your shootout, you will have lost most or all of my confidence in your conclusions. The feeling [that your method has a very logical and common sense approach] is the culprit. Do you have a method to test whether this feeling is actually correct? |
|
But I didn't have to cajole my wife to switch in DACs. 
