Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Serious ABX tests: Sony Discman vs High-end sources
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Serious ABX tests: Sony Discman vs High-end sources - Page 7

post #91 of 137
I think this is useful information, not regarding sources, but DBT's. At some point, if the result is ridiculous, it is reasonable to question the method of testing.

What I find a little difficult to understand is precisely what proposition is being advanced. I'm not convinced that all audible differences can be measured, but this proposition is not entirely unreasonable, IMO. Thus, if someone were to say that CD's players sound different, but you can measure the differences, I don't think I would have much problem with that. On the other hand, the notion that a Sony Discman sounds the same as a SACD player (assuming that is what is being advanced by some) or that all CD players sound the same, is just absurd. Might as well say dog food tastes like prime steak, so just focus on the sauce because that's all that matters.
post #92 of 137
Giant killer KIT, I'm sure: Boosteroo, Diskman and 580s KIT
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
I think this is useful information, not regarding sources, but DBT's. At some point, if the result is ridiculous, it is reasonable to question the method of testing.
To say that the result is ridiculous you mean that the result is not what you would expect, but if that is because it doesnt fit with accepted wisdom or expectations doesnt necessarily mean that the result is invalid it may just be somewhat surprising.



Quote:
On the other hand, the notion that a Sony Discman sounds the same as a SACD player (assuming that is what is being advanced by some) or that all CD players sound the same, is just absurd.
I would hesitate to say ALL , but if sometimes or even often two very different things do sound the same why is that not within the bounds of possibility. What a CD player does is pretty routine these days...
post #94 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
To say that the result is ridiculous you mean that the result is not what you would expect, but if that is because it doesnt fit with accepted wisdom or expectations doesnt necessarily mean that the result is invalid it may just be somewhat surprising.
As a general proposition, I agree with you. But I have heard several "well-measuring" (or whatever term what's-his-face wants to use) CD players and DAC's and they don't sound the same . . . and I am absolutely certain of that. Therefore, if a testing methodology results in conclusions that I find completely contrary to my experience, I think it is reasonable for me to question whether the testing methodology may be flawed (or fraudulent, etc.), or not revealing certain information that is pertinent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
I would hesitate to say ALL , but if sometimes or even often two very different things do sound the same why is that not within the bounds of possibility. What a CD player does is pretty routine these days...
Yes, two CD players or DAC's can sound the same. But a discman to me does not sound like a high-quality CD. And I have also listened extensively to some mid- to high quality CDP's and DAC's and they did not sound the same. And no, I didn't do a blind test, but I can taste the difference between Rice Chex and Wheat Chex cereal and I don't need a blind test to confirm there is a difference.
post #95 of 137
For those of you who do believe the ABX's results, I have a D-E775 that I'd be willing to sell for an exorbitant price.
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat01 View Post
If it takes you a day, a week or a month to determine the difference between 2 sources, then the differences must be pretty damn small or you are over analyzing the music rather than enjoying it. If the difference is that small, then it is not worth an extra $1000+ to me. I realize it may be worth it to others though. Finding microscopic "nuances" in my sound system really doesn't interest me. I would rather just listen and enjoy the music rather than pick it apart.

I think it is funny that everyone is so quick to call this nonsense and disagree with it without actually ABXing. How can you ever know if you don't ABX?
For me, it's quite the opposite:

i immediatly hear differences between cables and sources. And the differences stay that way over a long period of time.

If i don't hear a difference instantly, then probably there is no difference on a longer term.
post #97 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post
For those of you who do believe the ABX's results, I have a D-E775 that I'd be willing to sell for an exorbitant price.
Right....

strange thing is; i can hear quite huge differences actually between cheap and high end equipment. More detail, air, soundstage is bigger and wider, faster, more heft and more natural sound.

I obviously must be doing something wrong.

IMHO the only way to evaluate equipment is via headphones. You hear much easier differences then with speakers, no frequency losses etc. This way, no detail can be lost due to room accoustics.

Except when a speaker is significantly better then another, then you'l also hear quite clear differences, but if the source is close, headphones tell you more.
post #98 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by elrod-tom View Post
If I'm understanding this right, the author of the study is put by the OP into the company of the author of "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio"...that says as much as I need to hear about the agenda.
There are two separate things being discussed in this thread. There is a set of double-blind studies. And there is the separate discussion of Peter Aczel and The Audio Critic. The people who conducted these double-blind tests had no affiliation at all with Peter Aczel, as far as I can see. The only reason they are being discussed in the same thread is because the OP happened to discuss them together. I don't doubt that the people who conducted those studies would agree with at least some of Aczel's conclusions, but there is absolutely nothing in their studies that suggests that they have the same type of (to use your word) zealotry that you're so concerned about.

Honestly, did you even read the studies?

Quote:
It's not "Ten Things to Consider When Making Your Audio Purchases" or "Ten Ways to Get Good Sound for Less Money"...it's LIES. It's emotional, implies intent, and suggests that those who believe otherwise are either complicit in a scam or dupes.
Are you suggesting that there are no "scams and dupes" in this hobby? Or that every suggestion regarding how to get good sound for less money is invalid? Or that every list of ten things to consider when purchasing audio equipment is a "lie"?

In this hobby there are going to be good products and there are going to be bad products. And within each of those categories there are going to be components that make a very big difference, and components that make a very small difference, or no difference at all. And, of course, there are going to be products that are nothing but snake oil.

Quote:
It has correlaries in other areas of life...hence the comment about an athiest trying to convert the bible study group. Similar to, oh, I don't know, an objectivist trying to convince a group of posters at a headphone audio site that the only reason they hear a difference is because they haven't compared the right way? I mean, why would such a person pick such an audience? Looking for a fight maybe??
This comment is just silly. It is loaded with so many bad assumptions that it is not worth even attempting to address them individually.

I find discussions of controlled listening experiments to be of value to me in deciding what equipment to purchase and what to listen to on that equipment. Of course, I find my own listening to be of even greater value to me, which is why I have organized several Head-Fi meets, but it is not always possible to listen to all of the gear one wants to listen to, and it is certainly not always possible to do so in a controlled manner, so, to me, studies of the type described in this thread have value.

If you don't find value in those studies, that's fine; I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in converting you to my point of view. But those of us who find value in the studies that are the subject of this thread--or just enjoy discussing those studies--should be able to participate in a civil, meaningful discussion of them here at Head-Fi without being accused religious zealotry.

Really, it's no different than threads comparing cables. You have said on a number of occasions that you want to be able to have such discussions without cable skeptics coming in a crapping on the threads by arguing that you can't hear a difference in the first place. Fine. Then please have same respect for those of us who want to have a meaningful discussion of a topic that you disagree with.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think that we would all welcome meaningful criticism of the studies that are the subject of this thread. Of course, you will actually have to read the studies to do that but if you do read the studies and want to discuss your disagreement with the methodology or the conclusions, then that would be great. But if you just attack the authors of the study ad hominem without reading the studies and at least making an effort to understand what they did and how they did it, then I respectfully suggest that it is you who is just "looking for a fight."

Quote:
Do you suppose that most of these folks (e.g. the author of "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio") would design a blind test seeking to prove that there ARE differences?
Yes. As a matter of fact, if you were to take the time to understand what a double-blind study is, you would understand that the only thing that a properly designed double-blind test can prove is that there is a difference. It cannot prove that there is no difference.
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS View Post
. Therefore, if a testing methodology results in conclusions that I find completely contrary to my experience, I think it is reasonable for me to question whether the testing methodology may be flawed (or fraudulent, etc.), or not revealing certain information that is pertinent.
Agreed, skepticism is healthy, I would have liked to have seen more details about the exact setup and procedure. I think they tested subjects one at a time, which is the correct way to do it but they wouldnt get published in any kind of serious journal without supplying much more details.
post #100 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
Agreed, skepticism is healthy, I would have liked to have seen more details about the exact setup and procedure. I think they tested subjects one at a time, which is the correct way to do it but they wouldnt get published in any kind of serious journal without supplying much more details.
True, skepticism is important. Only this way you can determin if something is worth the money. However it doesn't bring into correlation the preferences of a person.

if someone likes something better then something else, how do you calculate the difference in hard cash? Say a player of 1000 dollars is less favourable then one of 3000 dollars, but someone LIKES it better. How do you translate the 2000 dollar difference into this equation?!
post #101 of 137
Double blind tests like this are generally useless.

Are the testers testing the equipment or the perceptual skills of the subjects? I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize this test is poorly designed if it can't isolate these two variables. Just because a test is double blind doesn't mean all the variables are accounted for, let alone isolated from each other.

It's almost impossible to design a test isolating one from the other hence, useless.

The conclusions are simply silly.

If I took a random group of people to a driving range and asked them to hit a golf ball as far as they could, I'm sure they would conclude it's impossible to hit the ball 300 yards. Which of course is simply wrong.

We all know it's a learned skill and can be done, albeit with much toil, training and use of innate ability, not to mention desire.

Why do people assume that everyone (or anyone) can tell the subtle differences in musical sounds.

My girlfriend is blind and she can walk right up to my car and grab the handle of the door first time everytime. She just snaps her fingers a couple of times and listens for the echo. This gives her a sonic picture of the car and she walks right up and grabs that handle.

This sounds miraculous. It ain't, it's a learned skill. Honed of necessity. And the average Joe/Jane in the street wouldn't think it's possible. Just because they can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't be done. And be done effortlessly.

Sigh...
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Honestly, did you even read the studies?
I glanced at them...that's all. I'll admit that. Honestly, what is one to conclude about a study that produces results where listeners can't tell the difference between - or prefer!! - a PCDP and a dedicated SACD player? There's something that's not "properly designed" in that double blind study IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Are you suggesting that there are no "scams and dupes" in this hobby? Or that every suggestion regarding how to get good sound for less money is invalid? Or that every list of ten things to consider when purchasing audio equipment is a "lie"?

In this hobby there are going to be good products and there are going to be bad products. And within each of those categories there are going to be components that make a very big difference, and components that make a very small difference, or no difference at all. And, of course, there are going to be products that are nothing but snake oil.
I don't disagree one bit that there are products that are IMHO a complete waste of money, and that some component upgrades produce less bang for the buck than others. However, it is my observation that words like lie and rip-off are typically used by those who set themselves up as the smarter and more enlightened than the poor dupes that they set out to save. It's like when someone calls someone a liar in politics...it's because they want to attach some sort of malevolent intent. So don't spend all your money on a CD player...it's a LIE that there's a difference. It's not enough to be WRONG about something, it's got to be a LIE too...it's got to be INTENTIONAL.

See where I'm coming from??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
This comment is just silly. It is loaded with so many bad assumptions that it is not worth even attempting to address them individually.
What is so silly about concluding that someone who addresses an audience of audiophiles (such as this one) attempting to convince folks that the only reason they hear a difference is because they haven't compared the right way is looking for a fight? You've been around here long enough to know that there are PLENTY of these folks around. The discussions generally go something like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie Newbie
I'm considering buying an upgrade cable for my HD650's. What cable do you guys think will make the most difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
There is no difference between cables...stick with your stock cable. See this link [[INSERT LINK HERE]].
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
I've spent a lot of time evaluating cables. What part of the sonic signature are you wanting to enhance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
All cables measure the same...it's a waste of money. Placebo effect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
Now hold on...I've spent a lot of time on this very issue, and I disagree. I know that I can hear the difference between the stock cable and most aftermarket cables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
Well, that's nice...but I'm SURE that you didn't do a properly constructed double-blind test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
As a matter of fact, I HAVE done blind testing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
Oh...well, are you certain that you matched the decibel level exactly? That yields different results you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
Yes...we switched the headphones back and forth and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
AH HA!! You can't do a properly executed double blind test with different headphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie Newbie
Gosh, I'm so confused...how do you switch headphone cables around like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
You don't...look, my advice is to attend a meet. Listen to some different cables and find one that you like, and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
Well, fine...if you want to waste your money, go right ahead. All cables sound the same...any extra money spend is a rip-off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auld tymer
I agree...go to a meet. Give a few different options a...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
Pla-CEE-bo effect!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie Newbie
Oh geez...well OK, next question. Is there an amp that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
All amps sound the same....see this link [[INSERT LINK HERE]]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie Newbie
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Man
OK folks...we don't allow this sort of discussion around here, as it ends up being a circular argument with no resolution point. Been there done that...so let's get this thread back on topic please...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cread thrapper
Oh well...censorship. What is it that you moderators are AFRAID of here? Gonna lose sponsors if the truth gets out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie Newbie
Quote:
Originally Posted by gristled vet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Man
Tell me you haven't seen this same discussion over and over and over and over and over on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think that we would all welcome meaningful criticism of the studies that are the subject of this thread. Of course, you will actually have to read the studies to do that but if you do read the studies and want to discuss your disagreement with the methodology or the conclusions, then that would be great. But if you just attack the authors of the study ad hominem without reading the studies and at least making an effort to understand what they did and how they did it, then I respectfully suggest that it is you who is just "looking for a fight."
This is not a completely unfair comment, but I'm not in fact looking for a fight. Quite to the contrary, I'm in some respects hoping to avoid one developing. I'm also frankly rolling my eyes at the notion that, even when they can TELL the difference that the subjects in this test preferred the PCDP. That just doesn't smell right to me. That tells me one of three things: either the components in the chain were not of sufficient quality to present the differences well, the participants were not taken from a pool such as those who post here, or something else was not quite right. In any case, such a study has virtually NO value to me, as I can CLEARLY hear the difference...as can most of the folks who post here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Yes. As a matter of fact, if you were to take the time to understand what a double-blind study is, you would understand that the only thing that a properly designed double-blind test can prove is that there is a difference. It cannot prove that there is no difference.
See...there it is. Talk down to me, huh? I guess I just don't UNDERSTAND. Remarkable how these discussions always seem to come down to that, isn't it??

What this ultimately comes down to is this: I believe that any study that reaches the conclusions that this one reaches is in some way flawed for MY purposes. You think otherwise. That's fine. There's an old saying about opinions that applies in both cases, I'm sure.
post #103 of 137
dude, you are the "cread thrapper" here
post #104 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
True, skepticism is important. Only this way you can determin if something is worth the money. However it doesn't bring into correlation the preferences of a person.

if someone likes something better then something else, how do you calculate the difference in hard cash? Say a player of 1000 dollars is less favourable then one of 3000 dollars, but someone LIKES it better. How do you translate the 2000 dollar difference into this equation?!
What do you mean by less favourable, that seems to be a contradiction with LIKES, do you mean technically superior , more popular or more recognised as higher end ?

I dont really see a problem here, I would call it $2000 dollars saved that can be spent on CDs and not a cause for any concern or requiring any major restruicturing of universal laws
post #105 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post
dude, you are the "cread thrapper" here
Dude, see my comment about opinions...

The OP posted about a double blind test result he'd seen, and my comment is that the result reveals something akin to saying there is no difference between a vintage Chateau Mouton Rothchild and your garden variety cheap red wine because both are red wines and their test group preferred the cheap red wine. This is nonsense on it's face in so far as it applies to most people who post here, and my comment was to that effect.

The rest was to point out why these particular types of threads prove irritating to those of us on the mod staff...it's not like this is the first time we've gone round with this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Serious ABX tests: Sony Discman vs High-end sources