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 5

post #61 of 3037

Yeah. Last week, Head-Fi changed ALL the cables. Night and day differences for me!

post #62 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

With what I know now, I'm willing to bet I could probably set up DBTs myself which would guarantee a negative or positive result for different types of components by deliberately matching or mis-matching components respectively, eg: a grossly under-powered amp for large speakers that require a lot of power tested at a moderately loud volume with orchestral works against a much more powerful amp.

No need to show us that you can detect something like 10% distortion. 

post #63 of 3037

We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.

 

Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.

 

Common sense people....

post #64 of 3037


Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaughter View Post

We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.

 

Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.

 

Common sense people....


I use short segments in my DBTs and they work really well, I tend to concentrate on 1 - 5 second segments, I find this method to be very sensitive. The corollary to this of course is that if a 1 minute delay is sufficient to obscure the difference between a $5 cable and a $500 cable perhaps the differemnce is not worth worrying about
 

post #65 of 3037
Thread Starter 

^^ Absolutely. 

post #66 of 3037

porsche-girls-4_180x130w.jpg  There is more than one reason to own a Porsche besides ease of entry.
Quote:

 

Originally Posted by ford2 View Post They are the same one's who run out and buy a Porsche when they turn 50 even though it takes them 10 minutes to get into it, and longer to get out.

There are five types of Porsche buyers.

post #67 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumflow View Post

porsche-girls-4_180x130w.jpg  There is more than one reason to own a Porsche besides ease of entry.
Quote:

There are five types of Porsche buyers.


Could not care less,and you are quoting out of context.
 

post #68 of 3037
Thread Starter 

Thread bump as I have added another blind test to the list.

post #69 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaughter View Post

We know our ears/brains have very short term memory. The same can be said for our eyes. They tend to fill in some blanks for us. The only way an ABX test would truly work, is with a switch box and short passages of a song. Flip the switch back and forth after maybe a 15-20 sec sample. Then our brain and ears don't have time to forget. Listening to a whole song and taking time to switch inputs or cables is just too long to be meaningful and not fair to our ears/brains.

 

Think of HDTV's. All the decent ones look good by themselves until you put them side by side. Then the differences are very apparent. Black levels, color accuracy, noise, ect. The eyes/brain don't get a chance to forget or fill in some blanks when side by side. You can't do that with an ABX audsio test, so ABX in itself is flawed to some degree.

 

Common sense people....


This can also be "flawed" if proven false. The clip might not be complex enough to see the difference or some other reason. I can put a VHs in both the HDTV and it'll be hard to see which one looks better as they all look very bad.

 

Too many variables that people can call false on when they don't get the results they like.

 

I believe in DBTs because although it might be slightly flawed here but it is enough to tell a pretty good truth.

post #70 of 3037

Still a good thread Prog Rock Man, keep updating whenever possible.  

post #71 of 3037
Thread Starter 

Hi Leny and other thread watchers, I am happy to keep on with the search and any other links are appreciated. As you say happyxix "I believe in DBTs because although it might be slightly flawed here but it is enough to tell a pretty good truth." 

post #72 of 3037
Thread Starter 

Thread bump for a link to a very interesting article by a former executive of the company who own AKG and other brands. Within the article is recognition of the difference between blind and sighted testing and how blind tests find smaller differences between speakers than when the same test is sighted. I am sure the author is correct in concluding, no matter how objective we try to be, brand, looks and price can be as big an influence on actual sound in deciding on what is best.

post #73 of 3037

You forgot the link.

post #74 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

You forgot the link.


It's in the first post.

post #75 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Thread bump for a link to a very interesting article by a former executive of the company who own AKG and other brands. Within the article is recognition of the difference between blind and sighted testing and how blind tests find smaller differences between speakers than when the same test is sighted. I am sure the author is correct in concluding, no matter how objective we try to be, brand, looks and price can be as big an influence on actual sound in deciding on what is best.

 

Thanks for the additions.  These are very much appreciated.

 

I only had time to go straight to the part you mentioned.  I was particularly tickled by the study looking at sighted vs blinded impressions of 4 speaker systems by audiophiles, many of whom claimed the ability to not be swayed by cost, size, appearance, brand etc.

 

Though both tests revealed differences between the speaker systems, the differences were quite exaggerated with the sighted test.  The cheap, plasticky looking system did particularly badly on relative terms to the other systems.  However, in the blind test, the cheap system with plastic enclosures outdid another system built by a reputable engineer. 

 

Tubes vs SS anyone?  

 

If you hang out in these threads too long, it can amount to huge savings and more focus on the music.

 

I'm finding it more and more difficult to find the motivation to express my opinion on any of my gear.  It's so ephemeral.... a part of my own tiny world.  


Edited by aimlink - 6/10/10 at 4:46am
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