Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 133

post #1981 of 2956
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

Blind, no, but objective, yes:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/evidence-headphone-break

 
If you don't want to read it all, the results showed small changes after burn-in, but as far as audible results the tests were inconclusive.
 
Double-blind testing of headphones is pretty much impossible, though.  

 

It is in another thread, I cannot remember which one, that there is evidence which shows there is some burn in with speakers, but leave them for a while and they return to their original state. So they only stay burned if if used regularly.

post #1982 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

 

That is the reason why some cables appear to do a better job than others when it comes to subjective sound and picture quality. Objectively, there is no difference from one functioning cable to another.

 

Did you get the sarcasm? redface.gif

post #1983 of 2956

I only read the OP of this thread, but it was amazing. Very glad something like this exists and hope more people take a look at it before wasting money, particularly on cables. Surprising too that I'd see it here on headfi

post #1984 of 2956

Excellent and well written post (I am referring to the original post). I am beginning to think that when I concluded that many expensive sound products sounded bad, I was just filtering what I heard through my wallet. I'm always asking myself the question does it sound good enough to justify the cost?  Usually--no, almost always--the answer is "no"!

 

Does anyone else use a "wallet filter" to evaluate audio equipment?

post #1985 of 2956

I don't know what everyone's talking about.  I hear the differences!

post #1986 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiascogarcia View Post

I don't know what everyone's talking about.  I hear the differences!

 

I can see that.

 

 

se

post #1987 of 2956

Very interesting articles and comments.  I agree with nearly all of it but completely agree that all testing should be scientific where possible.

 

So, if I may, can I summarise:

 

* Cables do very little

* Amps do change the sound but all amps can be made to sound the same with some tweaking and knowledge

* Headphones and speaks change the sound as we would hope they would

* Encoding process has an impact to a point

 

So, where to from here.  We know that the industry is driven by design and form over substance which is backed up by the research, so the next logical question is, what is next?

 

What will be the next component or process that the industry will put on show as delivering a new level of <insert sound related word>?  I find it very similar to all of the other industries where each iteration of a product is touted as the best thing ever and will ever be.  Just look at carpet cleaning products.  If their claims are to be believed the previous versions never worked and this version removes the most stubborn stains but this cycle is just repeated over and over again.

post #1988 of 2956

popcorn.gif

post #1989 of 2956

I haven't read through all 133 pages, but does anyone know of any reports of iterated ABX tests? Iteration will filter out all those bell-curve random-distribution results.  No matter how many you get right by chance, the probability of consistently getting the same ones right through multiple iterations is almost nil.  The only positives left will be the people that can consistently differentiate, and those positives carry a lot more weight.

For example, take test #42.  The person mentioned in the intro that correctly identified every time the amp was swapped was discounted as a "lucky coin".  Indeed, one out of every 32 people could do that without even hearing the test.  However, run the same test five times in a row and fewer than one in 33 million would be perfect "lucky coins".  If even one person out of a thousand can manage it, that's far too many to attribute to chance.

post #1990 of 2956
I'm fairly new to this hobby and I'm really glad I stumbled upon this thread. The knowledge I've gained here will definitely have a huge impact on the way I buy, research, and audition gear. If I can't hear it, it's going to be hard to justify paying for it just because someone with a sense of hearing that's typically about as inflated as their ego thinks they can. I have a black sheet and some Grado SR80i's and a Fiio Andes coming in and I'm looking forward to closing my eyes and hearing if the Fiio brings an improvement that I can consistently identify over source amps and DAC's through the Grado's, my HTS, and my 2.0's. I only have my moeny to gain back if there's no noticeable audible improvement. If there is, I keep the device to enjoy and either way I can write a meaningful review based on my findings. Win - win for me since I don't have a reputation derived from biased subjective claims to worry about. I think I'm going to start pitting a lot of my comparable gear against each other through blind testing as well - for reference - fun - and possibly to identify future entries into the audio classifieds. Thank you all!
post #1991 of 2956

Have been reading this thread for the last few nights. Amazing discussion. Thank you so much to the OP and to all who keep questioning and explaining. I have put together a decent little system on a really tight budget and was seriously concerned that the cables might be letting everything down (even though it sounds good...). This has made me think about testing out some room improvements first if I want to improve sound going forward. I noticed that Foobar2000 has an ABX plugin so I am going to have some fun with that too (vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI). 

 

One question, if the published measurements can tell us much about the sound then what are the sort of measurements we should be looking for in a 'natural' amp/cdp/dac/tt?

 

Thanks,

Andy

 

Edit: having Googled a bit more I realise this is a rather large question and probably not related to the original posting. Lots of info out there on the net so please disregard and count this post as a straight thank you from a new forum member. 


Edited by acdalek - 5/27/13 at 11:26pm
post #1992 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdalek View Post

what are the sort of measurements we should be looking for in a 'natural' amp/cdp/dac/tt?

If by "natural" you mean faithfulness to the source, then you are talking about fidelity. This article explains the four parameters of fidelity:

Audiophoolery

--Ethan
post #1993 of 2956

That's a great overview Ethan. Thank you.

Andy

post #1994 of 2956

What do you think about the earplugs that claim to protect your hearing by reducing noise while keeping the hi-fi range intact?

post #1995 of 2956
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdalek View Post

What do you think about the earplugs that claim to protect your hearing by reducing noise while keeping the hi-fi range intact?

Are you talking about IEMs?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths