|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.162.48.84
In Reply to: RE: True posted by kerr on December 05, 2014 at 05:31:39
Actually, that would be me. Years ago, I thought that audio reviewers knew what they were talking about when they attributed audible differences to various pieces of electronics. Then some of the audio clubs showed that despite the fact that many people thought they could generally hear audible differences between amplifiers, it turned out that in blind listining tests they no longer could identify many of the differences they thought they could.
No one, not even Richard Clark, thinks that every amplifier sounds the same. If they do not sound the same, one looks for the reasons in parameters such as level, frequency response, noise levels, possibly distortion levels, polarity inversion. When those differences are removed [reduced below audible levels), it seems people have great difficulty in showing they can hear those differences in a blind test.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
Although I said it was rare, not impossible.So taking your reasoning above, you were convinced based on the results of various DBT's. And yet, a thinking person such as yourself would be someone I would guess would not blindly (heh! sorry...) accept such results without some research into the validity of DBT's, particularly those that use the ABX Comparator. Not to mention the problems associated with quick snippets of music vs long term exposure.
In other words, how do you know you were not duped by a magic trick (Hey kids, watch me make sonic differences disappear!)? And I'm not baiting you - I'm truly interested... and I think others would be as well. You might be the novel approach that's needed to spice up this debate. Shoot, I thought people just fell into their side but it sounds like you were either pushed or you jumped to the other.
Edits: 12/09/14
The equipment reviewers at Stereo Review and I believe, High Fidelity, also became convinced that a lot of differences they thought they identified with sighted listening disappeared with level-matched blind listening. There are many others. I am not alone in this, by any means.
In his debate with John Atkinson, Arny Krueger notes that training will increase the ability of a person to detect differences in a DBT. John Atkinson agrees. jj agreed with that. E-stat agrees.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
training will increase the ability of a person to detect differences in a DBT
And, the more transparent system you use, the deeper into the recording you will hear and differences among components will be more readily observed. Just like any other activity:
It wasn't until I became a more accomplished ice skater and got Reidell Comp 925 boots that I could discern differences between John Wilson vs. MK blades. The MK Phantom provided better support taking off and landing jumps. Riding deep edges was a snap. I no longer had trouble with Camel spins.
It wasn't until I got a Honda S2000 capable of neutral 0.9G cornering that I could readily tell the difference between a truly high performance tire like the OEM Bridgestone S02s and lesser tires with which I experimented. The S02s (also supplied to various Ferrari and Porsche models) offered higher levels of adhesion and better road feel.
It wasn't until I had the chance to shoot a neighbor's highly modified rifle (comp trigger, floating target barrel, etc.) that I appreciated that the particular bullet and loading greatly affected long range (400-600 yd) accuracy.
The examples you give show an improvement in performance, in you skating, in your driving, in your ability to hit the target.
Now, a change in equipment may increase your enjoyment temporarily or long term.
A DBT may determine whether you actually can detect a difference in the sound of your system due to the change in the equipment.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"A DBT may determine whether you actually can detect a difference in the sound of your system due to the change in the equipment."
Category Error. Tests produce data. Well conducted tests produce evidence. Neither determines anything. People make determinations.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> ...training will increase the ability of a person to detect differences in a DBT.>
That proves it is a test of the listener's critical listening/test taking skills and invalidates it a scientific test of audio component differences.
In real scientific DBTs, does training the subject change the result of new drug clinical trials?
Laughable.
"That proves it is a test of the listener's critical listening/test taking skills and invalidates it a scientific test of audio component differences."
Well, well, now, I see the source of the confusion. Whoever said that an audio DBT was a test of audio component differences?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
That would be you fewer than thirty minutes after asking that question!
A DBT may determine whether you actually can detect a difference in the sound of your system due to the change in the equipment.
Reading comprehension is not your strongest point. Let's look again at what I wrote.
"A DBT may determine whether you actually can detect a difference in the sound of your system due to the change in the equipment."
Where does it say the test is of the differences in equipment? It doesn't. We already know there is a difference in the equipment, and one need not even turn it on to know that. With reasonably accurate measuring equipment, one could doubt measure the performance of each piece and compare the differences.
As Tony Lauck has pointed out, a DBT provides data, and people determine whether the person doing the DBT can detect a difference from the sound alone. Saying that a DBT does it is a linguistic short cut.
The issue is whether the person doing the DBT can detect the difference from the sound alone.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Read again the second and third sentences. Aloud, if necessary.
In particular, pay attention to words found in both sentences!
'Differences' and 'differences one can detect from the sound alone' are not the same thing. As I said, reading comprehension is not your strong point. Neither is good will, I would guess.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
After listening to it again, my original feeling remains unchanged... which is that the mindset of those who have heard it remains as unchanged as mine. I think both sides chose the "winner" that corresponds to their POV.
But thanks for posting anyway - it was interesting to hear that again.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: