Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

145791013

Comments

  • evhudsonsevhudsons Posts: 1,172
    edited April 2012
    As some here I respect and sometimes understand has said, careful and consistent listening will cause your ears to evolve. Its my favorite quote ever on this forum and is completely true. With this debate it's hard for noobs like me to understand, but some folks don't get that quote above and therefor their lack of listening lessens their ability to let their ears evolve.

    As far as testing, each person has different aspects they look for and their reactions differ. But when at least two people can look at each other and say wow that was an improvement, you know you are on to something worth testing.

    My biggest interest in school was psychological testing. It's an awesome range of a variety of tests to test just about anything. There is certainly a place for psychoacoustics. For instance I minimize my component lights and meters. I don't like silver finish. Both take away from listening to music. I have a clean and artistic comfy setting with warm lights. I prefer this setting but others like meters, flashy components and lots lights.
    I like slightly humid and 80 degrees, my wife 72 degrees and desert dry. I like to have no fans or Ac because it's not audio. I wind up sharing Ac and fan noise, fridge noise, wife banter and dog snoring.

    If your ears are physically different you receive a different audio experience. Simply move your ears in or out a little and it's a huge difference. What if you had bigger ears flared out or flat small ears? Your experience would be entirely different. So to have a good test the inherent differences would have to be averaged and the settings as consistent as possible, but also either consistency in types of listeners or factor in the various groups. So folks with vast knowledge and experience such as h9 and DK are in a category who can discerne differences that your mother in law listening to englebert Humperdinck could only give blank looks to would be best to handle such tests.
    If you put a bunch of southern speaking folks together I could in these sorts of tests tell you not Only what state they are from but sometimes even what city. I spoke with a random stranger the other day and surprised her when I asked her which high school she went to in Montgomery Alabama. My experience has given me this specialized insight ability to tell the subtle but certainly present differences in their speech patterns, inflections and tones. Someone from Russia might only discerne they are from the South based on watching movies or TVs. My experience would be analogous to high end audio equipment with experience to hear stereophonic differences. The Russian might have recieved their analogous experience in a cheap HTIB.
    Of course I would have a hard time making such distinctions from just one spoken word. I would have to listen to a conversation. In audio you would have to have a listening session, not just a quick sound bites worth to make a distintion. But some differences are so much faster to make when you are educated about what you are listening for and what may contribute to the difference.

    I got two of the lowest end MIT ic cables, and my wife noticed right away despite not knowing I changed a thing. I had been using basic RadioShack and basic monster cable interconnects before. I was surprised at the immediate difference.

    One test I did is after reading a snake oil report that electrical wire performed as well as $10,000 speaker wire I tried using some electrical wire I had. It had a bigger gauge than what I was using. It changed immediately but seemed sterile and lacking that nice spatial and warm tone. I upgraded the gauge on speaker wire and was rewarded with music. Wire makes a huge difference. At what point is it worth arguing though if you haven't made the proper equipment change to know what a quality wire will do. For my setup low end MIT is just fine.

    I've tried the various amps and just acquired a NAD. My favorite thus far is parasound by far. AdcOm second and nad 3rd. The b&k is nice to. My opinion is that the avr is my weak link. It's not bad but it doesn't have the same nice sound.
    But of course each piece is used, varying age, and hooked to various speakers. It would take me quite a bit of time to do these tests. I would put my faith in opinions of people that know how to test, what to test for, and know why the differences occur.

    Just speaking as an enthralled, listening, and trying to understand, but grateful for your thoughts noobie.
    Without folks like H9, DarqueKnight, Nspindle, and Trey/vrsomething, and many others I would not have the audio joy I have at home. My wife thanks you all too.

    Polk Audio SDA CRS+ (4.1TL by Trey, Larry's Rings)-
    SDA SRS2-Parasound HCA1500ax2/1000
    Yamaha xa1000-Celestion SL6S presence,- sl9 surround back
    NHTsuper1's surround
    Nad2700-sub, AdcomGFA-555 -Magnepan SMG
    Parasound 1500pre- Sofia "Baby" tube amp - Monitor Audio Silver RX2
    Marantz 2230/B&Kst140- outdoor B&W/Bose/Parasound/KefC75/c40/Polksub
    Technics 1200mk2
    Gamertag: IslandBerserker
    I am but a infinitesimally small point meeting the line of infinity in the SDA universe
  • evhudsonsevhudsons Posts: 1,172
    edited April 2012
    I was stuck in jury duty and wrote that long post on my iPhone. The guilty pleaded so I'm free now.

    Keep up the debate. I love it! Might have to sticky this one. I also loved the links.

    Polk Audio SDA CRS+ (4.1TL by Trey, Larry's Rings)-
    SDA SRS2-Parasound HCA1500ax2/1000
    Yamaha xa1000-Celestion SL6S presence,- sl9 surround back
    NHTsuper1's surround
    Nad2700-sub, AdcomGFA-555 -Magnepan SMG
    Parasound 1500pre- Sofia "Baby" tube amp - Monitor Audio Silver RX2
    Marantz 2230/B&Kst140- outdoor B&W/Bose/Parasound/KefC75/c40/Polksub
    Technics 1200mk2
    Gamertag: IslandBerserker
    I am but a infinitesimally small point meeting the line of infinity in the SDA universe
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,909
    edited April 2012
    Did anyone expect this thread to go in any other direction than it did? You only learn something when you are willing and open to learning. If your entire position is a defensive one, why bother?

    Rock on, do what you do. I know I will.
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i | Preamp/DAC: PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell | Power Amp: Parasound Halo A21 | Speakers: PSB Imagine T2 | Cables: Signal Cable Analog 2 XLR; Kimber 8VS Bi-Wire; DH Labs D-75 Dig Coax | AC Power: Panamax M5300-PM
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    Specifically, how do you conduct an audio equipment trial (procedurally) and what performance metrics do you evaluate?
    Syndil wrote: »
    I do a simple XY comparison with the help of a friend.

    Metrics? I am not using laboratory gear when judging audio gear, I am using my perception and my brain. It is a subjective comparison, so the only "metric" I have to determine is which one I like the sound of better. I may occasionally make notes about the differing characteristics of the sound if the comparison is close, but ultimately I prefer the deciding factor to be which sound is able to draw out the most emotion while I listen.

    The exchange above perfectly illustrates the basic difference between serious listeners and blind test for stereo adherents: the first group is interested in, and knowledgeable of, stereophony. The second group is not.

    Notice that the deciding factor in Syndil's evaluation is which component can "draw out" the most emotion. Emotional thrills are an important part of the entertainment experience. However, emotional thrills are not unique to stereophony. Emotional thrills come from every other entertainment activity (movies, television, sex, food, etc.). If your primary performance measurement for a stereo system is emotional evocation, you might as well be listening in mono.

    Typical of blind test for stereo adherents, Syndil did not mention sound stage dimensions, three-dimensionality, image weight, holography or any of the other unique primary performance characteristics of stereo sound. He stated that he is primarily interested in the evocation of an emotional response. Therefore, trying to explain to a such a person that there is no need to hide equipment when you can perfectly well hear that one component produces a wider and deeper sound stage, one component has a more stable image localization, or one component produces more tactile sensation against your body, is an exercise in futility. These are foreign concepts to them. Syndil even goes so far as to scoff at the advisement of the people who invented home stereo systems. This is not surprising, considering that the early pioneers intended for their invention to be evaluated primarily on the basis of stereophonic performance. In other words, the primary metric of a stereo system is the quality of the three dimensional aural illusion it creates.

    As I said a couple of years ago about a well known blind cable test:
    This test shares the same heritage as all the other ABX audio tests I have read:
    They all use evaluative methods that display an appalling ignorance of the way stereophonic audio systems work.

    If I'm asked about my stereophonic performance metrics, I'm going to talk about how wide and deep and tall the sound stage is. I'm going to talk about being able to turn my head to the left or right and "look" at a sound image and not have the sound stage collapse. I'm going to talk about being able to "look behind" the vocalist in the center and focus on the drummer behind her. I'm going to talk about the bass sensations coming through the floor, armrests and my body. I'm going to talk about vocal and instrumental clarity and detail. I'm going to talk about the layering and liquidity of sound as it flows from the sound stage and into my ears. I'm going to talk about the "airiness" of high notes and the "swirling" sound patterns of thick synthesizer notes...and so on and so forth. This kind of descriptive talk sounds crazy to most blind test for stereo adherents...because they've never experienced it. They just want to know if there is a "difference". Never mind the nature of the difference...that's not important.

    If I were evaluating gear mainly on my "feelings", then such things as physical appearance, cost, and brand name might be influential in a gear selection decision. I can understand the need for blinding in that case...if your mind and ears are not mature enough to be trusted...if you are fearful of, or susceptible to, being tricked. Decisions based on emotion are highly biased.

    If gear is being evaluated on the standard parameters of a complex stereophonic presentation, rather than feelings, then you can just document the stereophonic presentation of each component...if you know how. It is not a trivial undertaking.

    Is it "wrong" to hide the identity of components when doing a stereophonic evaluation? Of course not. Just like it is not "wrong" to use bicycle training wheels after a child has learned to keep balance. But why would you?

    The question is often asked "if an expert listener can tell a difference while knowing the identity of components, why can't they do the same if the component's identities are hidden?" The answer is they can. But why would they? What is the value of adding the additional complexity of a blind test to an already properly set up stereo evaluation? The answer is there is none. Serious listeners are not interested in providing confidence in evaluation to the naysayers and other inexperienced non-serious listeners. They are interested in providing reference data to themselves, to other properly trained and experienced serious listeners and to inexperienced serious listeners who have an interest in learning appropriate stereophonic evaluation techniques.

    What About Television?

    The naysayer claims that blinding is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to eliminate bias in stereo component selection. However when we look at how televisions are evaluated by serious viewers, these tests are non-blind and use experienced and trained evaluators. There is no controversy over the need for blind tests. Here are some links to well known television "shoot-outs":

    cnet.com-how-we-test

    2010-value-electronics-flat-panel-shootout

    Panasonic Wins 2010 HDTV Shootout

    sharp-elite-wins-2011-value-electronics-hdtv-shootout

    2009-tweaktv-value-electronics-hdtv-shoot-out.html

    The common thread through these televisions is the utilization of evaluators trained in television performance metrics. Hence, this quote from CNET, taken from the first link above:
    "The most important piece of test equipment is a trained, expert eye. Test patterns and the latest gear are no substitute for a knowledgeable, keen-eyed evaluator with a background in reviewing similar types of TVs. CNET's TV reviewers, David Katzmaier and Ty Pendlebury, have extensive experience reviewing and calibrating displays, and performs all measurements and tests themselves."

    In these tests, trained evaluators place competing televisions side-by-side and measure their performance. There is no attempt to hide brands, even though it could easily be done by framing each set with poster board. Among videophiles (serious, trained viewers) there is no demand for blind tests to avoid bias and being tricked.
    Television evaluators seem to have discovered a way to eliminate the effect of visual bias in their evaluations: EYE TRAINING!!!

    shootout_image_610x456.jpg

    2010_Kevin_D_nice_red_610x408.jpg

    Interestingly, blind tests are sometimes used in television comparisons: when the evaluator is a random consumer. The link below is an example:

    LG TV Consumer Blind Test

    Now, if we are fair, we must ask ourselves, "if blind testing is not required for serious evaluation of televisions, why would it be required for serious evaluation of stereo systems?" Is the ear more susceptible to bias and trickery than the eye? No, we know that the eye is the primary human sense organ and that it is highly susceptible to being "tricked". That is why eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable by the justice system.

    In the video world, serious viewers are advised to adopt a set of performance evaluation practices that will assure fair, accurate and competent trials. Videophiles are advised to train themselves on picture quality settings and to invest in inexpensive video calibration software. Similar to this, music lovers/serious listeners/audiophiles were advised near the beginning of the availability of home stereo systems to " become sophisticated in the art of sound localization" and to "play the same records many times and thus become familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects of stereo sound"

    I have been accused of having some "agenda" against blind testing. As I have said many times, blind testing has its application for some types of audio, but not for stereo. My "agenda" is assisting serious listeners in getting the highest performance and stereophonic listening pleasure from their stereo systems.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    steveinaz wrote: »
    Did anyone expect this thread to go in any other direction than it did? You only learn something when you are willing and open to learning. If your entire position is a defensive one, why bother?

    There are many newcomers to our hobby who had/have questions about these topics. An example of this is evhudsons' comment bellow.

    I agree that nothing can be done with a closed, defensive mind. However, not every one who asks these types of questions is closed-minded. Some people have serious interest in stereo, yet are confused by all the conflicting information available on the Internet. Some things in audio are counter-intuitive and require research, reasoning, and sometimes guidance, to properly work out.

    Many people were very patient and generous in answering my questions and providing guidance when I entered this hobby 27 years ago. Shouldn't I be equally patient and generous with whatever knowledge and experience I have to share?

    These types of threads typically run into the thousands of views. That means many more people are reading the thread than posting in the thread. Some are reading for entertainment, but some are reading for learning...as evidenced by the many PM's and emails I receive expressing appreciation for having helped them understand some stereophonic concept they were struggling with.
    evhudsons wrote: »
    Just speaking as an enthralled, listening, and trying to understand, but grateful for your thoughts noobie. Without folks like H9, DarqueKnight, Nspindle, and Trey/vrsomething, and many others I would not have the audio joy I have at home. My wife thanks you all too.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • SyndilSyndil Posts: 1,591
    edited April 2012
    Is it "wrong" to hide the identity of components when doing a stereophonic evaluation? Of course not. Just like it is not "wrong" to use bicycle training wheels after a child has learned to keep balance. But why would you?

    Finally, amidst the ad hominem attack on my experience (based on incorrect assumptions), bold but rubbish claims, and a completely irrelevant tangent about TV testing, an actual answer. Was that so hard? I've come to expect and tolerate the holier-than-thou attitude from self-proclaimed audiophiles, but really, it didn't need to take this long to get to this point.

    So we agree that there is nothing wrong with blind testing; a properly conducted blind test of stereophonic equipment will produce the same results as an unblinded test--if the unblinded test is free of bias. Correct?

    RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
    Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
    Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
    Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII
  • sucks2bemesucks2beme Posts: 4,832
    edited April 2012
    Once again, blind testing (not DBT) is ok, but really requires people who know how to listen.
    My wife just enjoys the music, where I often find myself picking out instruments and following
    them along through the piece. Same with vocals. That wasn't always the case. My old gear
    couldn't render them well, and it wasn't something I ever listened for. Now I can hear the
    components of music. Same with many vocals. I can hear the other vocalists and the effect it
    has on the song. This becomes more pronounced using my Stax headphone set up. Without room
    effects, the image suffers somewhat, but this effect of hearing all the pieces of the music
    is amazing. It was a long journey to get there. I test a lot of stuff. Sometimes I do a sanity
    (or according to the wife, an insanity check) by pulling a lot of my gear out of the closet and
    running through everything to make sure the stuff in the system is the better sounding stuff.
    In the case of headphones, they all have a different sound, so rotating them around gives
    a different view of the music.
    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,909
    edited April 2012
    Raife, I applaud your patience and knowledge on these subjects.
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i | Preamp/DAC: PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell | Power Amp: Parasound Halo A21 | Speakers: PSB Imagine T2 | Cables: Signal Cable Analog 2 XLR; Kimber 8VS Bi-Wire; DH Labs D-75 Dig Coax | AC Power: Panamax M5300-PM
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 10,720
    edited April 2012
    Just what is the point of a 'blind' test? It amazes me how much time and effort can be devoted to an irrelevant topic. The question is, does a new addition to the stereo sound better, the same, or worse than the original. If so then keep it. If not then return it. Hiding the gear is not going to change the sound. Is it really that hard to grasp this concept?
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin S1 - X1 power supply
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    Syndil wrote: »
    Finally, amidst the ad hominem attack on my experience (based on incorrect assumptions), bold but rubbish claims, and a completely irrelevant tangent about TV testing, an actual answer. Was that so hard? I've come to expect and tolerate the holier-than-thou attitude from self-proclaimed audiophiles, but really, it didn't need to take this long to get to this point.

    So we agree that there is nothing wrong with blind testing; a properly conducted blind test of stereophonic equipment will produce the same results as an unblinded test--if the unblinded test is free of bias. Correct?

    I find your mindset to be similar to that of people in the ante bellum South who could, at any time, spout off 1000 justifications for slavery.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012
    Syndil wrote: »

    So we agree that there is nothing wrong with blind testing; a properly conducted blind test of stereophonic equipment will produce the same results as an unblinded test--if the unblinded test is free of bias. Correct?

    Love how you flip-flop. I bet you change colors when it suits you too.

    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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    BlueFox wrote: »
    Just what is the point of a 'blind' test? It amazes me how much time and effort can be devoted to an irrelevant topic. The question is, does a new addition to the stereo sound better, the same, or worse than the original. If so then keep it. If not then return it. Hiding the gear is not going to change the sound. Is it really that hard to grasp this concept?

    It is not hard to grasp that concept. It is hard to abandon one's religious views. You must realize that asking a blind test for stereo cultist to accept ear training and standardization of evaluation procedure is like asking a Catholic to become a Hindu.

    The point of a blind test is to test the tester. In other words, it is not enough for some people that a trained evaluator comes to an evaluative result using proper procedure. Some people need to "test the tester" in order to be assured that evaluator bias did not play a role in the results.

    For example, the discussion in this thread regarding the audibility of changes in power cords:

    1. First the naysaysers claim that there are no scientific studies that show a performance difference between power cords.
    2. When a scientific study is done showing different power cords have different effects on reducing power line noise, the naysayers claim the effect is inaudible, yet they produce no scientific substantiation for their claim.
    3. Scientific evidence is provided which includes measurements of noise reduction provided by power cable changes that show the noise reduction is much greater than the threshold of audibility established by a prior peer-reviewed scientific study.
    4. Naysayers then claim the the results will not be acceptable until they are "proven" with a blind test. In other words, even though it was quantitatively proven that there was a noise improvement with a higher quality power cord and that the improvement was well above the threshold of audibility, the tester needed to be tested in order to "prove" that he heard what he heard.

    Another consideration is that blind testing frequently leads to no perceived difference in audio components. This is very comforting to individuals who want to believe that their $200 CD player performs every bit as well as a $2000 player.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • SyndilSyndil Posts: 1,591
    edited April 2012
    I find your mindset to be similar to that of people in the ante bellum South who could, at any time, spout off 1000 justifications for slavery.

    What? Nevermind. Are we in agreement about this or not:
    Syndil wrote: »
    So we agree that there is nothing wrong with blind testing; a properly conducted blind test of stereophonic equipment will produce the same results as an unblinded test--if the unblinded test is free of bias. Correct?
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Love how you flip-flop. I bet you change colors when it suits you too.

    On which point did I flip flop??

    RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
    Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
    Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
    Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Love how you flip-flop. I bet you change colors when it suits you too.

    Are you suggesting a career in politics? :cheesygrin: :cheesygrin: :cheesygrin:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012
    You and others have stated the only way for a proper test to be done is blind, now that DK has acquiesced that blind testing can be done if one chooses, but it's not necessary. You agree that you can obtain the exact same results with both methods. Until now you have never stated that, inferred that, or ever once eluded to that. Your position and others is that blind testing has to be done to eliminate the bias. Now you have flip-flopped saying they will both give the same results (with the caveat the sighted test has the bias removed).

    I'm sure now you will twist something you've said around to point to the fact that all along you were in favor of sighted testing being the same as blind testing as long as the bias is removed or some such string of thoughts and points you never brought up specifically.

    If I have misinterpreted your stance on the issue please point me to the previous posts where you stated they (blind and sighted tests in stereophonic audio analysis) can achieve the same results. There is a lot of white noise in this thread and I might have missed it, or glanced over it.

    H9

    P.s. When I say to the previous posts, I mean a direct quote or link to the verbage used at the time. Not your reinterpretation or paraphrasing to cover your a$$.
    "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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    Syndil wrote: »
    Are we in agreement about this or not:?

    This statement and post #175 seem to indicate that you act like you won't be able to enjoy your emotion driven evaluative process unless I agree with you. What you do with your gear is no concern of mine. As I clearly stated, I am interested in exchanging ideas and collaborating with other serious listeners interested in stereophony.

    I have laid out my evaluative process in detail. If you choose to take from that something diametrically opposite to what I wrote, that is fine. I think that the content of my prior posts is quite clear for those who evaluate stereo systems with other metrics other than emotion.

    As for you, I think it is great that you have found an evaluative procedure that works for you. I also think it is great that you are able to rationalize away the need for stereophonic ear training and proper procedure...and that you only need your "feelings" to evaluate gear. I would still think it was great if you did listening tests standing on your head wearing a blindfold, ear muffs and a ski mask.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    heiney9 wrote: »
    You and others have stated the only way for a proper test to be done is blind, now that DK has acquiesced that blind testing can be done if one chooses, but it's not necessary.

    This is not acquiescensce or some "new revelation" on my part. I specifically stated in post #146 that I sometimes use blind testing:
    Items 1-10 comprise just a partial list of the performance parameters I evaluate. Some people may feel the need "blind" themselves. I do not. The people who invented stereo intended for the individual to learn to evaluate stereo equipment on their on...without the need for assistance from second, third, or more parties in setting up blind trials. Either the sound stage is wider/deeper/taller or it is not. Either I hear more details and clarity or I do not.

    Sometimes I will blind trial another trusted set of trained ears out of curiosity to see if the other person hears the same things at the same intensity as me. Sometimes I will blind trial a set of untrained ears...particularly if the differences I perceive are subtle.
    heiney9 wrote: »
    You agree that you can obtain the exact same results with both methods. Until now you have never stated that, inferred that, or ever once eluded to that.

    He is desperate to receive acceptance for his emotionally based stereo evaluation procedure.

    I have consistently held the position that, for the untrained listener, blinding can lead to inaccurate results and that for the trained listener, blinding is unneccessary. If it is not required for trained listeners, why insist that it must ALWAYS be done? This is from post #138 in this thread where I discuss the use of blind trials in my journal paper case study:
    I was advised by the journal's review panel, which was composed of sensory science experts, that the blind nature of the trial was unnecessary. I was further advised that blinding with minimally trained subjects could induce guessing as the subject might focus on getting the right answer rather than focus on the sensory stimuli presented. More information on that journal publication can be read here.


    Notice how he dismissed as "irrelevant" the evidence that blind trials are not used in television. Why is this irrelevant? If bias can be in hearing can't it also be in seeing? I would think even moreso since humans are much more influenced by what they see than what they hear!!!

    Surely someone can explain why blinding for audio is required but blinding for television is not.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012
    I am sorry DK, "acquiescensce" was not the proper term. I was surprised to see him "jump" at that concept even though all along you (and I know I didn't) ever say blind testing isn't or can't be done. Speaking strictly for myself, I have ALWAYS maintained for me and my experiences it doesn't have to be a blind test for me to figure out which one I prefer.

    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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    heiney9 wrote: »
    I was surprised to see him "jump" at that concept even though all along you (and I know I didn't) ever say blind testing isn't or can't be done.

    Desperation makes people do desperate things. If you dangle a cobra in front of a drowning man he will grab it!
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    Deleted duplicate post.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012

    Notice how he dismissed as "irrelevant" the evidence that blind trials are not used in television. Why is this irrelevant? If bias can be in hearing can't it also be in seeing? I would think even moreso since humans are much more influenced by what they see than what they hear!!!

    Surely someone can explain why blinding for audio is required but blinding for television is not.

    Of course it was dismissed by him. It once again proves that a trained observer can make unbiased observations without resulting to sighted biases. He had to dismiss it because embracing it would create a serious conflict to his current argument and POV.

    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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012

    Surely someone can explain why blinding for audio is required but blinding for television is not.

    Yes, I would like to understand this as well. They are so similar one can't help but think there is a very strong commonality.

    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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    heiney9 wrote: »
    Of course it was dismissed by him. It once again proves that a trained observer can make unbiased observations without resulting to sighted biases. He had to dismiss it because embracing it would create a serious conflict to his current argument and POV.

    Nooooooooo! It couldn't be that. There has to be some good, solid, scientifically and quantitatively justified reason why television evaluators can be trained to overcome sighted bias but stereo evaluators cannot.

    Oh, the sheer and utterly abysmal hypocrisy:
    Syndil wrote: »
    I think it's all about you both not being able to address my concerns directly. I see a lot of dodging and dismissal, whereas I am being brief and to the point.

    Were you brief and to the point in posts #145 and #175? Is it wrong for others to fully develop their points, along with substantiating evidence (that you always summarily dismiss), yet it is ok for you to write dissertations pleading over and over again for people to "answer" questions previously answered in detail?
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    Uh oh...I see Ken is reading...I hope we aren't about to get shut down....not before we find out why blind testing is good for the goose (audio) but not for the gander (video).

    C'mon Ken!
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • heiney9heiney9 Posts: 24,025
    edited April 2012
    I honestly think has been one of the more civil discussions. No one resorting to name calling, etc. Just basically having some passionate banter about audio.

    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 Aleph 30 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Plus DAC | MIT Shotgun S3 | MIT Z P/C's | updated SDA 1C| SQ Box Touch/Welbourne Labs P/S- Tubes add soul!
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,440
    edited April 2012
    ....and video.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 10,720
    edited April 2012
    Uh oh...I see Ken is reading...I hope we aren't about to get shut down....not before we find out why blind testing is good for the goose (audio) but not for the gander (video).

    C'mon Ken!

    As long as the Chili stories do not start appearing then the thread should be okay.
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin S1 - X1 power supply
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,424
    edited April 2012
    Surely someone can explain why blinding for audio is required but blinding for television is not.

    Of course it's because you cannot do the test if you can't see the TV! You don't need your eyes to listen to audio gear, but you do need your eyes to watch TV!:wink::razz:

    Greg
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • DMaraDMara Posts: 1,436
    edited April 2012
    I think blind testing is a good method to identify who's the real deal and who's not. In this audio hobby, there are plenty of folks who are naive enough to think that their setup is the best as well as there are quite a few folks who are bribed/paid by manufacturers to give a certain review/opinion. Of course blind testing isn't necessary for true audiophiles who always try to look for and conquer a higher summit, or even for normal listeners like myself who want to taste various specs to find out what we really like, which signature really pleases our ears. Therefore, for me, I didn't learn anything from this thread that I can say it's useful to me.
    Gears shared to both living room & bedroom:
    Integra DHC-80.3 / Oppo BDP-105 / DirecTV HR24 DVR /APC S15blk PC-UPS
    Living room:
    LSiM707's / LSiM706c / LSiM702 F/X's / dual JL Audio Fathom F113's / Parasound Halo A51 / Panasonic 65" TC-P65VT50
    Bedroom:
    Usher Dancer Mini 2 Diamond DMD's / Logitech SB Touch / W4S STP-SE / W4S DAC-2 / W4S ST-1000 / Samsung 52" LN52B750
    Other rooms:
    Audioengine AP4's / GLOW Audio Sub One / audio-gd NFB-3 DAC / Audioengine N22
    audio-gd NFB-10.2 / Denon AH-D7000
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 18,909
    edited April 2012
    I believe there are people that can make eating a banana split a complex activity.
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i | Preamp/DAC: PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell | Power Amp: Parasound Halo A21 | Speakers: PSB Imagine T2 | Cables: Signal Cable Analog 2 XLR; Kimber 8VS Bi-Wire; DH Labs D-75 Dig Coax | AC Power: Panamax M5300-PM
145791013
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!