The Sound Of Hard Drive Enclosures
Comments
-
I read your quite lengthy reply, and while interesting, I am still convinced you are a human being.
Your dismissive and deflective response is typical of people who are mindset in a particular view and who will consider no credible evidence to the contrary.
You may have read my lengthy reply, but you clearly did not, or did not want to, UNDERSTAND it. I never said I wasn't a human being. I said I am a human being that has been trained to ignore my biases and evaluate based on objective criteria. The entire thread is an example of me choosing alternatives that were less appealing to me on an aesthetic and personal level, but offered higher performance.You are telling me you have no normal human reactions to a music/equipment comparison, yet are a human being doing the comparison, by yourself and controlling all the variables.
Please quote where I said, implied, or alluded to your bizarre and irrational conclusion above. I must seriously doubt that you actually read the review in this thread, because I clearly stated a preference for the Rosewill enclosure, based on its aesthetic appeal, build quality, and display features, yet I chose a less visually appealing alternative.
Here is another personal human reaction example for you: I actually dislike the look of silver-faced audio gear, yet I have invested in tens of thousands of dollars of silver-faced Pass Labs electronics (which I hide behind black metal mesh cabinet doors).
You are obviously denying that a person can be trained to ignore personal bias. I have cited my personal experiences that contravene that opinion. The Wikipedia article I cited references credible scientific literature on methods of debiasing consumers. What credible scientific literature can you cite that unequivocally proves that human beings cannot learn to ignore personal bias and evaluate on the basis of objective criteria?I get it was just a fun "comparison", do not mean to belittle the extensive work you did and the time involved, but if you are aware of which unit is "being used", then you are not effectively removed from the test, but are another variable.
Yes, you are passively/aggressively attempting to belittle my work. That is what people do when they cannot scientifically and objectively refute something they disagree with - they personally attack the person, rather than objectively rebutt the person's views.
It was not necessary to remove myself from the test. Only the effect of my personal biases needed to be removed. I stated those biases and I stated the objective criteria on which my equipment selections were made. The fact that I chose a mechanical hard drive when I clearly prefer solid state drives and the fact that I chose a less appealing option among the mechanical drives would inform any rational person that my personal biases had effectively been excluded from my decision process.Kinda like comparing sodas and seeing the labels.
It is quite telling that you bring up the subject of sighted comparison of sodas. In the field of sensory science, taste testing is done two ways: sighted and blind. Sighted testing is done by subjects trained in sensory evaluation of food and beverage. These are the subjects that food and beverage manufacturers use in their developmental work. Blind testing is done by untrained (naive) subjects and is used more in marketing. Blind testing is not used with trained subjects in the evaluation of multidimensional sensory stimuli such as food and beverage because it leads to erroneous results. Food and beverage has multidimensional sensory effects because it involves the senses of sight, taste, feeling, hearing, and smell. The evaluation of a stereophonic sound field is multidimensional because it involves the senses of sight, feeling, and hearing.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
ken brydson wrote: »
I am offended that the forum's censoring software allowed DICK but censored L i p s h i t z.Absolute_Zero wrote: »DarqueKnight wrote: »
Saying that people must do audio evaluations blind because that is the only way to avoid bias is as silly and misinformed
I would say that doing bias controlling for a large N would be more efficient than attempting training same said group IMO.
But when it comes to an individual's evaluation of their personal stereo system, we are not talking about a large N are we?
Furthermore, what is efficient may not be accurate. Unfortunately, the evaluation of multidimensional (complex) sensory stimuli does not lend itself to efficient testing methods. There are too many things that must be accounted for and there are too many things that can and will be missed in simple discrimination tests like blind tests. For example, blind tests for audio typically focus on hearing a "difference". However, stereo systems produce tactile as well as aural information. If the difference is only in tactile sensation, a person focusing only on sound will miss it.
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
^^^ That last sentence.....I'm not being a part of the "collective" and jumping on a bandwagon.
But that sums it up. I appreciate DKs work and indepth analysis of every piece of gear that has crossed his bench.
But now I understand his approach to the music part.
Most of us have forgotten about the music that brought us here in the first place.
Sometimes we forget...... -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
But when it comes to an individual's evaluation of their personal stereo system, we are not talking about a large N are we?
No we aren't, but then we are talking echoic memory performance which presents another set of issues.
I personally isolated storage from playback, use a system with a TPD of 5 watts max and usually around 2-3 watts nominal.
Plus even the connection isn't hardwired in any way. I'm able to start playback, and turn on airplane mode and the music still plays on without perceptible difference to me. Since the system is powering a USB 3.0 AC 600 adapter and the DAC sits on a USB 2.0 bus even that is isolated and all driven from a $50 linear, regulated, power supply.
-
But wouldn't echoic memory performance the most important part evaluation?
There might be people in the evaluation that might be side tracked or can really careless making the evalation of those singular or multiple participants void.2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC
erat interfectorem cesar et **** dictatorem dicere a -
Absolute_Zero wrote: »DarqueKnight wrote: »
But when it comes to an individual's evaluation of their personal stereo system, we are not talking about a large N are we?
No we aren't, but then we are talking echoic memory performance which presents another set of issues.
If what is heard is accurately described, and documented graphically and in words, then the effects of echoic memory are of no consequence. In my evaluations I don't focus on trying to remember what was heard and felt previously and then comparing it to what I hear and feel presently. I document the observed stimuli in each trial and then compare my documentation afterward. It is a tedious process, but how can you be certain of differences if a proper inventory of the sound stage has not been taken?
Of course, there may be differences between trials that easily stand out. More often differences are subtle or are masked by other stimuli.txcoastal1 wrote: »But wouldn't echoic memory performance the most important part evaluation?
No, not for something as complex as a stereophonic sound field, where multiple sounds, from multiple locations, must be evaluated with respect to size, location, tactile sensation, and sound quality. Trying to remember all of those factors from one trial to the next is extremely difficult.
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Absolute_Zero wrote: »DarqueKnight wrote: »
Saying that people must do audio evaluations blind because that is the only way to avoid bias is as silly and misinformed
I would say that doing bias controlling for a large N would be more efficient than attempting training same said group IMO.
If you remove the person from the equation,(blind) that has to be better than simply the person saying "I am not biased in any way, I went to training last week"
That reminds me of one place I worked, we had sexual sensitivity training, and after 4 hours of boredom, think every guy in the workplace was transformed??
-
@DK.....
I see that you automatically assumed listening "Blind" was only for a quick comparison to hear a difference, when in reality, you can listen "Blind" for an hour, take all the notes and graphs you want, and still use your method, but without knowing what you are listening to.
I am not certain why you feel you must be totally aware of what you are listening to. That skews the validity of the test, as you are not going to be impartial for sure, other than you claiming you took training to be impartial.
Call them Red, Blue, Green, and take all the notes you want. At least then, you are effectively for sure out of the equation.
Blind testing is not all about just quick fire A/B switching.
It is about the listener not being aware of what they are evaluating.
I would think if anything that could only improve your truly in depth process. -
@DK.....
I see that you automatically assumed listening "Blind" was only for a quick comparison to hear a difference, when in reality, you can listen "Blind" for an hour, take all the notes and graphs you want, and still use your method, but without knowing what you are listening to.
I am not certain why you feel you must be totally aware of what you are listening to. That skews the validity of the test, as you are not going to be impartial for sure, other than you claiming you took training to be impartial.
I did not assume blind testing was only for quick comparison. If you had taken the time to actually read the information I cited, you would know that I am very familiar with the various forms of blind testing. Furthermore, I have stated many times that blind testing is appropriate for some simple types of audio, like voice discrimination, but it is inappropriate for stereophonic sound, which is too complex to be accurately evaluated by a simple discrimination method.
It is not that I feel that I MUST know what I am listening to, and I never said or implied such. The point is that the knowledge of what I am listening to is irrelevant to my evaluative process.
What you have done is automatically assume that it is impossible for a person to train away bias and that the knowledge of what is being evaluated must be taken out of the evaluative process.
The method you are advocating adds another unnecessary level of complexity to audio evaluation because one other person is required for a blind trial and two other people are required for a double blind trial.
The part you can't seem to grasp is that a test, in order to be scientifically valid, a test must be representative of actual real world scenarios. I don't need to involve one or two people in my audio equipment evaluations because I am aware of my biases and I have trained myself to ignore them. What purpose would be served by involving other people in the process? If I have trained myself to know the sound of my dog's bark, I know it's him barking whether he is standing in the room or out in the yard. I don't need to prove to someone else that I can discern my dog's bark from others by using a blind test.
When you survey blind tests for audio, most of them involve some type of trick (rigging) that handicaps the listener in some way. For example, in the SACD test in the other thread, the testers devised a totally unnecessary method of degrading an SACD signal to CD quality, when CD and SACD versions of the same master tapes, made by the same production team, were easily available.Blind testing is not all about just quick fire A/B switching.
It is about the listener not being aware of what they are evaluating.
I would think if anything that could only improve your truly in depth process.
Your question of adding blinding to my evaluative process is a typical response from people who are not knowledgeable of proper sensory testing techniques and who have accepted the fallacy that blind testing is the ONLY WAY to remove subject bias in evaluative trials.
Blind testing is for discriminating among a set of simple stimuli. It is not appropriate for complex multidimensional stimuli scenarios which require training for proper perception and discernment. In other words, the requirement for training negates the requirement for blinding. Your inability to grasp this simple concept is the basis of your misunderstanding.
Since blinding is meant to remove bias, and the tester has removed their bias through training, what sense does it make to add that level of complexity back to the testing process? It is like asking an experienced Harly rider to go back to riding a bicycle with training wheels in order to prove to someone else that he/she can ride level.
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
If you remove the person from the equation,(blind) that has to be better than simply the person saying "I am not biased in any way, I went to training last week"
Blinding does not remove bias. It removes the knowledge of what is tested. If a racially or gender biased person is prevented from knowing the identity of job applicants, they can still exercise their bias by not selecting either candidate in order to avoid hiring someone they deem undesirable.
You could give a biased person a thousand blind tests and they could still lie and say they don't perceive a difference. This is especially true of someone who already believes "all amps, cables, CD players, etc., sound alike".That reminds me of one place I worked, we had sexual sensitivity training, and after 4 hours of boredom, think every guy in the workplace was transformed??
Why would this discussion remind you of sexual sensitivity training? This is a discussion on evaluative training, not training for behavior modification. The two topics are as far apart as fire is from water.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
If you remove the person from the equation,(blind) that has to be better than simply the person saying "I am not biased in any way, I went to training last week"
Blinding does not remove bias. It removes the knowledge of what is tested. If a racially or gender biased person is prevented from knowing the identity of job applicants, they can still exercise their bias by not selecting either candidate in order to avoid hiring someone they deem undesirable. They could also rig the job screening tests in order to make it more difficult for certain types of people to pass. For example, a reading comprehension test that makes frequent references to American cultural or historical facts might prove impossible for a South American immigrant to pass, even though that immigrant might speak English better than a native, born and raised, U.S. citizen.
You could give a biased person a thousand blind tests and they could still lie and say they don't perceive a difference. This is especially true of someone who already believes "all amps, cables, CD players, etc., sound alike".That reminds me of one place I worked, we had sexual sensitivity training, and after 4 hours of boredom, think every guy in the workplace was transformed??
Why would this discussion remind you of sexual sensitivity training? This is a discussion on evaluative training, not training for behavior modification. The two topics are as far apart as fire is from water.[/quote]
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
@DK.....in a way that will be understandable.
Give a college class an Exam.
The teacher gives out answer sheets for all students to use.
All were trained to not look at the answers.
How reliable would their Answers be?
Human nature can not be circumvented.
Post edited by K_M on -
@DK.....in a way that will be understandable.
Give a college class an Exam.
The teacher gives out answer sheets for all students to use.
All were trained to not look at the answers.
How reliable would their Answers be?
You continue to prove my point about "blind test for stereo" advocates needing to use rigged tests to prove their points.
How reasonable would it be to give an exam along with the answer sheets? That would be a foolish waste of the students' and the professor's time. The unrealistic scenario you posed is not in any way representative of a true audio evaluation. I find it bizarre that you would associate the two, and this continual grasping at smoke indicates that you know that your positions are not based on a solid scientific basis.
A college exam is designed to test a student's retention and application of knowledge previously dispensed by lecture and guided study. An audio equipment evaluation must not be designed to test the subject's prior knowledge of the equipment. It is not a test of the subject at all. It is a test of which equipment alternative offers more stereophonic performance based on such metrics as sound stage dimensions, clarity and detail of sound, image specificity, image weight, tactile sensation, etc. In this regard, a proper audio equipment evaluation is a form of quantitative (and qualitative) measurement. If I hear sound images confined to the space between the speakers with Amp A and I hear the same sound images just outside the outer edges of the speakers with Amp B, I would hear that difference, and be able to quantify it with a tape measure, whether I know the identities of the amps or not.Human nature can not be circumvented.
Human nature does not need to be circumvented in stereo equipment evaluations because that is not what is being tested.
Again, I am going to ask you three questions which you seem to want to avoid:
1. What credible scientific evidence do you have that perceptual training cannot remove the effects of a test subject's personal biases? Notice I said remove the effect of the bias, not remove the bias itself.
2. There appears to be much credible scientific evidence that THE EFFECTS of bias can be adequately remediated through training. If the effects of bias can be removed via training, what is the rational basis for blinding to remove bias?
3. Blinding is not always an effective remediation for bias (see examples I provided in a previous post). What is the rational basis for saying that blinding removes bias when a mindset individual can simply say they perceive no differences in order to avoid inadvertently choosing an undesirable alternative?
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
Again, I am going to ask you three questions which you seem to want to avoid:
1. What credible scientific evidence do you have that perceptual training cannot remove the effects of a test subject's personal biases? Notice I said remove the effect of the bias, not remove the bias itself.
2. There appears to be much credible scientific evidence that THE EFFECTS of bias can be adequately remediated through training. If the effects of bias can be removed via training, what is the rational basis for blinding to remove bias?
3. Blinding is not always an effective remediation for bias (see examples I provided in a previous post). What is the rational basis for saying that blinding removes bias when a mindset individual can simply say they perceive no differences in order to avoid inadvertently choosing an undesirable alternative?
1. You want me to prove you did not take training, or it does not work? Proof is on the person making the claim, pretty sure that is the standard.
2. The test would be if the same result was found blind or unaware.
3. Honestly my head is spinning, was that a question? -
Generally, trying to discredit someone with a stellar level of integrity, with a "cute" one sentence blurb aimed at the the thought of "well, the moment you involve a human, all bets are off" is both lazy-minded and bad form.
Just MY 2 cents.
I'm pretty sure I'll keep reading Ray's posts; he puts alot of work/evidence into them.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
DarqueKnight wrote: »reduced six cognitive biases by more than 30% immediately and by more than 20% as long as three months later. The biased reduced were anchoring, bias blind spot, confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error, projection bias, and representativeness."[/i][/b]
Is this percentage good enough? Does bias controlled testing yield better reduction?"DarqueKnight wrote: »By definition, the evaluation of stereophonic sound requires a listener who is objectively trained in evaluating the spatial and quality aspects of a three dimensional sound field. Since the evaluation of stereo sound is an exercise that requires some training and experience, it is silly and uninformed to pose that such subjects can be swayed by sighted trials and personal bias when the only subjects that should be used are those that have been trained to ignore aesthetics and personal bias and objectively evaluate on the basis of performance.
But if they are so trained, what does it matter? They don't need to know to evaluate for precisely the reason that they are highly trained. -
1. You want me to prove you did not take training, or it does not work? Proof is on the person making the claim, pretty sure that is the standard.
You have a spectacular propensity and capability for deflection and wildly tangential thinking.
I didn't ask you to prove anything about what I did or didn't do. I cited scientific evidence that the effects of bias can be removed by training. You have consistently said that the only way bias can be removed is through blinding. My question was asking you to scientifically justify your position...if you can.
2. The test would be if the same result was found blind or unaware.
Then why add another level of complexity if it is not required?3. Honestly my head is spinning, was that a question?
Yes, it was a question. Here it is again:
What is the rational basis for saying that blinding removes bias when a mindset individual can simply say they perceive no differences in order to avoid inadvertently choosing an undesirable alternative?
I even provided a real life example of the question above. Not sure why this would make your head spin, unless it is due to the effects of cognitive dissonance.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Generally, trying to discredit someone with a stellar level of integrity, with a "cute" one sentence blurb aimed at the the thought of "well, the moment you involve a human, all bets are off" is both lazy-minded and bad form.
Just MY 2 cents.
I'm pretty sure I'll keep reading Ray's posts; he puts alot of work/evidence into them.
Not sure that comment is fair or accurate.(Hinting that I am trying to make him look bad)
I was finding it an interesting conversation and discussion.
Blind testing is considered a very accurate way to remove the human from the equation.
I have never heard of this "training" he mentioned before. Are you more familiar with it, or have done this training also?
I have done with my husband and several other people a few blind tests, and had very interesting results. I thought most considered that a much more reliable way of comparing.
-
DarqueKnight wrote: »
1. You want me to prove you did not take training, or it does not work? Proof is on the person making the claim, pretty sure that is the standard.
You have a spectacular propensity and capability for deflection and wildly tangential thinking.
I didn't ask you to prove anything about what I did or didn't do. I cited scientific evidence that the effects of bias can be removed by training. You have consistently said that the only way bias can be removed is through blinding. My question was asking you to scientifically justify your position...if you can.
2. The test would be if the same result was found blind or unaware.
Then why add another level of complexity if it is not required?3. Honestly my head is spinning, was that a question?
Yes, it was a question. Here it is again:
What is the rational basis for saying that blinding removes bias when a mindset individual can simply say they perceive no differences in order to avoid inadvertently choosing an undesirable alternative?
I even provided a real life example of the question above. Not sure why this would make your head spin, unless it is due to the effects of cognitive dissonance.
So, you are asking me to prove your method and training does not work, right?
I am still not even sure where you got this training, from several posts back I asked.
Was it at a school, online, done yourself? Something you read about? My reason for questioning it, was due to never having heard of it.
But let me get it straight, you are wanting me to prove some "training" you use, which I am not familiar with, is not valid?
I asked if you had proof it worked, as again, I had never heard of it. Not sure why that would require me to Post scientific proof it is not valid.
Blind testing is pretty commonly accepted was all I said. I asked why you did not use it.
Forgive me for questioning your methods. I am sure they are completly accurate for your situation.
-
DarqueKnight wrote: »
Yes, it was a question. Here it is again:
What is the rational basis for saying that blinding removes bias when a mindset individual can simply say they perceive no differences in order to avoid inadvertently choosing an undesirable alternative?
I even provided a real life example of the question above. Not sure why this would make your head spin, unless it is due to the effects of cognitive dissonance.DarqueKnight wrote:You could give a biased person a thousand blind tests and they could still lie and say they don't perceive a difference. This is especially true of someone who already believes "all amps, cables, CD players, etc., sound alike".
What's not to understand?afterburnt wrote: »They didn't speak a word of English, they were from South Carolina.
Village Idiot of Club Polk -
DK- 1000
K_M - zero
He's asking for scientific proof of your position? Why do you keep deflecting and making up wild analogies that have no basis in the subject being discussed. Your position on this issue certainly comes from a proven scientific point like DK's does, otherwise it's just hot air, also known as one's opinion. And so far, you can't seem to even support your own opinion all that convincingly.
I am not trying to be nasty or condescending, but you have been asked several times to cite your "work" or point in the direction of some evidence as to what you are saying, but so far you deflect and try an make cutesy remarks as a away of avoiding the subject.
Might be best to move on, your starting to look a bit silly and no blind test is needed notice that.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
But let me get it straight, you are wanting me to prove some "training" you use, which I am not familiar with, is not valid?
No. I have already scientifically substantiated my methods. I am asking you to provide the scientific basis for YOUR belief that personal bias can only be remedied through blind testing.
I fully understand why you do not want to address this. Your response is typical of every proponent of universal blind testing that I have asked for scientific justification of their position.I asked if you had proof it worked, as again, I had never heard of it. Not sure why that would require me to Post scientific proof it is not valid.
Wow.Blind testing is pretty commonly accepted was all I said. I asked why you did not use it.
I was wondering when you were going to pull the "argument by consensus" card out of your hat, i.e. "a lot of people accept this, so it must be true".
I gave a perfectly reasonably answer as to why I don't use it. For the types of measurements I do, blind testing does not make sense. It is as ridiculous as saying you are going to measure the interior volume of two boxes, and the box maufacturers must be hidden because knowing that one box came from Tiffany's, and was made of diamond encrusted platium, and the other box came from Walmart, and was made of paper, would cause you to say the Tiffany's box was bigger based on sight alone.Forgive me for questioning your methods. I am sure they are completly accurate for your situation.
Now comes the dodge....i.e., "no, I can't scientifically support my position, therefore I am going to play the victim and run off".
Where did I criticize you for disagreeing with me? I provided a scientific basis for my stereo sound evaluation methods and you argued that they are inaccurate because they do not remove the human element. I then asked you to provide a scientific basis for your position and you chose, as is typical in these types of discussions, to run off rather than stand your provide scientific justification.
Isn't one of your goals here to enlighten us?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »It is as ridiculous as saying you are going to measure the interior volume of two boxes, and the box maufacturers must be hidden because knowing that one box came from Tiffany's,
Those are objective measurements though... I don't think that's a problem.
At Audiostream there is often a lot of talk about mixed signal systems (AGN + DGN), digital cabling, USB 'regenerators' etc... and perceptual changes in audio. But there is never a measurement about how the analog output of a DAC is affected. Not even something as trivial as using Audacity and performing FFT.
But you slew on over to AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum and we find some real information vs a listeners impression. -
-
So *THAT'S* what I have been doing wrong all along...I've been listening and determining what sounds best to me using my ears, not scientific measuring devices...
Stupid me. And here, all along, I thought that *listening* to music involved one's ears."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Absolute_Zero wrote: »DarqueKnight wrote: »It is as ridiculous as saying you are going to measure the interior volume of two boxes, and the box maufacturers must be hidden because knowing that one box came from Tiffany's,
Those are objective measurements though... I don't think that's a problem.
At Audiostream there is often a lot of talk about mixed signal systems (AGN + DGN), digital cabling, USB 'regenerators' etc... and perceptual changes in audio. But there is never a measurement about how the analog output of a DAC is affected. Not even something as trivial as using Audacity and performing FFT.
But you slew on over to AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum and we find some real information vs a listeners impression.
I'd be curious to know how imaging and sound staging is measured, pray tell.afterburnt wrote: »They didn't speak a word of English, they were from South Carolina.
Village Idiot of Club Polk -
So *THAT'S* what I have been doing wrong all along...I've been listening and determining what sounds best to me using my ears, not scientific measuring devices...
Stupid me. And here, all along, I thought that *listening* to music involved one's ears.
I didn't say that there weren't weren't experiencing a difference in sound. I'm just saying they are able to see something else going on instrumentation wise.
-
Absolute_Zero wrote: »DarqueKnight wrote: »It is as ridiculous as saying you are going to measure the interior volume of two boxes, and the box maufacturers must be hidden because knowing that one box came from Tiffany's,
Those are objective measurements though... I don't think that's a problem.
If I consistently perceive a sound stage width of 10 feet with one amp and a sound stage width of 15 feet with another amp, how would a blind test add more validity to that process?Absolute_Zero wrote: »At Audiostream there is often a lot of talk about mixed signal systems (AGN + DGN), digital cabling, USB 'regenerators' etc... and perceptual changes in audio. But there is never a measurement about how the analog output of a DAC is affected. Not even something as trivial as using Audacity and performing FFT.
But you slew on over to AudioScienceReview or Whats Best Forum and we find some real information vs a listeners impression.
I am an electrical engineer and I actually do quite a bit of measurement, including FFT analysis, along with listening. Here are a couple of examples:
http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/153600/further-vibration-abatement-for-the-cary-audio-cd-306-pro-version-sacd-player
http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/92655/home-cookin-the-audiodharma-cable-cooker
The above are just two examples of my quantitative studies on stereophonic performance going back over 10 years.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
If I consistently perceive a sound stage width of 10 feet with one amp and a sound stage width of 15 feet with another amp, how would a blind test add more validity to that process?
Well for starters, and this isn't being contrary, you wouldn't need to worry if it was blinded.
I'm curious if FFT or some other form of instrumentation could show what is going on in that scenario.
-
Absolute_Zero wrote: »
I didn't say that there weren't weren't experiencing a difference in sound. I'm just saying they are able to see something else going on instrumentation wise.
Are "they" able to correlate electrical measurements to the following?
1. The size and lateral placement of sound images within a sound stage.
2. The sonic weight of sound images within a sound stage.
3. The tactile sensation that is apparently produced by specific images within a sound stage.
4. The amount of depth perceived in a sound stage, e.g. "amp A has more depth performance because of ___________ electrical parameters.
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
