Audio gd Sparrow Blind Test - Page 3  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl 

I will go to a meet if I see one here,  But I am done with this silliness for now.

 

I think when I go to the meet, i will get a big fancy box with an ipod inside it and see how many people I can fool, I mean impress.

I'm not sure I see your point now with this thread.  Just because you're deaf as a freakin' Post doesn't mean everyone else is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyxix 

I hate when everyone compared everything with car analogies.

 

A car is a mechanical system. Audio isn't. They cannot be compared period.

 

While I'm at it why don't I get a better HDMI cable. Maybe a Monster one. Its probably costs $100 but I want that Ferrari and not the Toyota Corolla right?

 

See how stupid car references are.

Dynamic transducer headphones are quite mechanical indeed and do have moving parts that require high quality power to sound their best so the car analogy only really applies for headphones and speakers and what-not.

As a side note, not all HDMI are not the same (true), however will it matter for 99.9% of setups? No (As long as it's HDMI 1.2a and above spec).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mochan 







I'm sorry, but this is the kind of douchebag elitism that makes audiophiles look bad.

The truth is often painful. Yikes makes very astute points that I agree with 100%. You need a real test track (as in widely recognized as such in mastering) at full resolution (ripped with EAC) to wav IMO ...mp3's are a damned kludge.

Peete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi 

Dynamic transducer headphones are quite mechanical indeed and do have moving parts that require high quality power to sound their best so the car analogy only really applies for headphones and speakers and what-not.

As a side note, not all HDMI are not the same (true), however will it matter for 99.9% of setups? No (As long as it's HDMI 1.2a and above spec).

Yea I meant the back end of systems. Not the headphones as I already said its the primary difference maker.

A digital signal is a digital signal. You either get it or you don't. HDMI (of the same type of course) lines are the same after a very early point. You can butter it up all you want with thickness or beautiful sleeving but it doesn't matter for the actual use of it. Digital signals don't suffer in short distances. The only people who says you need top of the line digital cables for less than 6 meters is just pure marketing BS. But you will know if your digital is degraded with digital. It simply doesn't work unlike analog signal which slowly degrades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyxix 

I hate when everyone compared everything with car analogies.

 

A car is a mechanical system. Audio isn't. They cannot be compared period.

 

While I'm at it why don't I get a better HDMI cable. Maybe a Monster one. Its probably costs $100 but I want that Ferrari and not the Toyota Corolla right?

 

See how stupid car references are.

I wasn't comparing the two. I was making the point that everything compared was in the same price bracket but the conclusion is somehow that "high end"(aka something that was not tested at all) is fake. If you can't understand that amps with different slew rates, distortion, rise/fall times and things effect the sound coming out of the headphone(because they are controlling the signal going in), I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand that post either. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mochan 

I'm sorry, but this is the kind of douchebag elitism that makes audiophiles look bad.

+1
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl 

I think when I go to the meet, i will get a big fancy box with an ipod inside it and see how many people I can fool, I mean impress.

Don't bother... Its been done hundreds of times before with the same results...

Heres the short version...

"you can't hear a difference because your equipment isn't good enough yet"

"you can't hear a difference because the recording isn't ideal"

"you can't hear a difference because your ears are broken"

 - "then you try it"

"I can't pass the dbt because dbt is flawed"

 - "fine, no blind testing.. try see which one of these sounds better"

"the expensive looking tube amp sounds WAYY better, no contest"

 - "I didn't change gears... you were listening to the same equipment both times"

"That was because you tricked me into thinking that you switched gears... so it doesn't count for several reasons"

"5 minutes is hardly enough time to critically listen for differences"

"there was added bias by leading me to think you changed gears"

"there is a lot of added stress when listening in this kind of setting"

"good try for trying to disprove me,  but I know what I can hear" 

"i'll trust my own ears thank you"

"thread closed by moderator"

its happened hundreds of times before, and it'll happen a million times more.

Theres is never a shortage of people who want to disprove the audiophiles, and never a shortage of excuses for the audiophiles to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyriel0 

I wasn't comparing the two. I was making the point that everything compared was in the same price bracket but the conclusion is somehow that "high end"(aka something that was not tested at all) is fake. If you can't understand that amps with different slew rates, distortion, rise/fall times and things effect the sound coming out of the headphone, I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand that post either. 

Distortion? Really? Any amp if its well engineered should not suffer much distortion. If it did even an ibud would pick it up. All the points you made wouldn't even matter as if an amp is $300 it would have more than enough money to sufficiently cover those issues. I mean rises and falls are covered in pico to nanoseconds. You tell me you can hear that picosecond delay? Give me a break. The only differences in amps is the power or gain it gives out. And that is the difference in amps to drive cans that are higher or lower impedance.

Don't even get me started on DACs.

If you want overengineered amps that changes the sound then that is different. You are paying the money to change the flavour and not to have a more "detailed" and "precision" amp. Of course R/D also goes into the prices of the higher end amps but just because its highly "researched." You might pay the money for an research that created its own op amp or dac but that doesn't make it different or special than the already commonly establish components on the market.

I never said high end was fake. I said the difference would be quite small and sometimes negligible. The most suspicious thing is that everyone cries for a DBT and when its proven false all the audiophiles cries that the test is unfair and biased which I ranted about in my original post and makes us look like a bunch of hypocritic snake oil believing fools.

If you want to hear differences, your sound equipment needs to be revealing enough to let you. This goes for differences in mechanical sources, amplifiers, recording quality, digital rips, even cables and power.

Also those differences may not be apparent in A/B comparisons, DBT or not. I would say that the more subtle differences need some real eartime to recognize them, and then sometimes you have to switch back to the original to really appreciate them. This can take weeks or even months depending on how much you listen, mainly due to psychoacoustic burn-in.

Just my two cents

Crazy Carl for Most Persistent Troll 2010

^If the "difference" is subtle enough to take months(!) to properly discern, then what is the point of such high end equipment in the first place?

I'm mostly with the op on this one. Headphones provide the greatest differene in sound. File quality is distinguishable, but it is much much more subtle than many on these forums would lead one to believe. And as for amps and sources, as long as it is well designed there will be no difference whatsoever (tube amps excluded).

Just think about it. What does a source do? It reads the information on a CD (1s and 0s) and transmits those 1s and 0s forward. Any decently designed modern source is capable of that.

@Crazy*Carl

You're revolting against the human nature my friend and it's useless. The pure fact that you're spending $1,000 instead of $500 puts pressure on your subconsciousness to really "find" a difference, even if it is not there. It works the same with all the aspects of you life, not only the sound. And IT WORKS.

Read more on this forum. You'll see ppl spending hundreds and then struggling for days and days to perceive a minuscule difference. And they will, but any doctor can tell you it's imaginary in 90% of the cases. Not saying we should all stick with the128/ipod, I'm saying that from a certain point up it's all placebo.

But, at the end of the day, what's real doesn't matter. What matters if what your brain is telling you. If you managed to convince yourself that you hear something great, then that's all you need. Nothing else matters.

I'm working in marketing for some good years now. I know how to manipulate ppl into buying something not really worth the money. It's classic, nothing spectacular, it's just pure psychology, I can make a manual out of it. It works so great that even after they bought the thing, I, myself cannot talk them out of it. They would be like "sure, sure, you're just kidding".

There is a very cool commercial for Honda and in one scene they show a guy in his 50, next to what looks like a super-dooper amp. And, quietly, like he's sharing the 2nd coming, he says: it reproduces frequencies only dogs can hear.

This says it all :)