Well your "test" to me lacks any validity.  The reason is that you went into it with an expectation or a bias.
 
i bet that you had huge hopes and dreams for your sparrow based on all the hype and exaggeration created here (which I agree with you is ridiculous)
Then when you finally heard it you were disgusted that it sounded basicly the same as your onboard soundcard.
In that frame of mind you conceived the idea to perform a "double blind" test to prove what you had experienced.  Not surprisingly you couldn't tell a difference as you didn't want to be able to.
Just a theory... now a valid test would have been if you used some1 who had no bias but who also has a discerning ear when it comes to audio. 

Ya, of course they don't want stuff like that.  This is all a big business!  People like me are the last thing they want.

Quote:

angle_sh00ter said:

Well your "test" to me lacks any validity.  The reason is that you went into it with an expectation or a bias.
 
i bet that you had huge hopes and dreams for your sparrow based on all the hype and exaggeration created here (which I agree with you is ridiculous)
Then when you finally heard it you were disgusted that it sounded basicly the same as your onboard soundcard.
In that frame of mind you conceived the idea to perform a "double blind" test to prove what you had experienced.  Not surprisingly you couldn't tell a difference as you didn't want to be able to.
Just a theory... now a valid test would have been if you used some1 who had no bias but who also has a discerning ear when it comes to audio. 

Click to expand...

More on how my test was invalid.
 
It still is true that I could not tell the difference between the two.  You can't deny this or alot of other valid tests that disprove alot in the hi-fi business.
 

 
Quote:

Crazy*Carl said:

But isn't it kind of eye opening how this thread has progressed.  The consensus went from I am wrong, devices do make a big difference to people spent tons of money for tiny improvements or even just placebo effects.  Its amazing that more people don't blind test.  I won't believe another review on head-fi unless there is blind testing done.
 
I think there are alot of people at head-fi who would value this information in this thread.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody (at least me) said that you were wrong for not hearing the difference. Most people just don't like the fact that you seem to think because you can't hear the difference then everybody else shouldn't hear the difference too or otherwise they are just lying. Keep in mind, no matter how objective your blind test was, it was you sitting in the test, which makes the result subjective and only applies to you. The result does not and should not apply to anyone else cuz some may be able to hear the difference easily. After all, everybody is different.
 
You said you won't believe any review unless it is blind-tested. I'd say you shouldn't believe any review except for your own cuz after all they are basically just people's personal impressions, but you should read as many as you can (if you have time and enjoy reading them) cuz they will at least give you a general idea of what majority of people think of that. However, like I said before, always take it with a graint of salt and do audition before making the purchase (if possible).
 
Whether or not the device is making big improvement is another story. It's very hard to quantify it cuz some may value a marginal difference for thousands of dollars and some others may ignore any difference and value them no more than a buck.
 
Lee

Mate I'm largely in your camp regarding all the hype that gets thrown around here.  But I think you will find that is common to all enthusiasts in any context.  They use hyperbole to describe tiny subtle differences.  We have a TV show here called master chef and the judges use the exact same flowery words to describe food as we use to describe sound.  After a while you get used to it and you are able to filter it out but for a lot of people starting out I believe it is extremely misleading.
 
I also agree with others who have pointed out that your tone and approach is out of line.  Just because you are behind a computer doesn't mean that decency and respect goes out the window.  We're all people here, and yes we may have different views about things but we still should treat each other with a level of respect. 

Quote:

angle_sh00ter said:

Well your "test" to me lacks any validity.  The reason is that you went into it with an expectation or a bias.
 
i bet that you had huge hopes and dreams for your sparrow based on all the hype and exaggeration created here (which I agree with you is ridiculous)
Then when you finally heard it you were disgusted that it sounded basicly the same as your onboard soundcard.
In that frame of mind you conceived the idea to perform a "double blind" test to prove what you had experienced.  Not surprisingly you couldn't tell a difference as you didn't want to be able to.
Just a theory... now a valid test would have been if you used some1 who had no bias but who also has a discerning ear when it comes to audio. 

Click to expand...

Unless a test is carried out without the knowledge or those being tested, there is always going to be an expectation or bias. There are tests which have taken actions to try and get around that.
 
The infamous wire coat hanger blind test was a test where at least those who knew cables were being swapped, but did not realise one was a coat hanger. Then the Audio Wigwam power cord test had two identical cables (in the four which had been disguised for the test), sent out to forum members.
 
What Hifi have disguised their tests so that forum members do not even know what is being swapped around. 
 
It is perfectly reasonable of Crazy Carl to think, hold on an minute that amp sounds just like my sound card and very commendable to then arrange a blind test to establish if that was really the case. It would be good of those who claim significant differences to back them up with similar blind tests.
 
Your comments about a discerning ear are not backed up by studies by Sean Olive from Harman International. They are also not backed up by audiophile blind testing by the likes of The Boston Audio Society. 

Quote:

miyinan said:

 
I don't think anybody (at least me) said that you were wrong for not hearing the difference. Most people just don't like the fact that you seem to think because you can't hear the difference then everybody else shouldn't hear the difference too or otherwise they are just lying. Keep in mind, no matter how objective your blind test was, it was you sitting in the test, which makes the result subjective and only applies to you. The result does not and should not apply to anyone else cuz some may be able to hear the difference easily. After all, everybody is different.
 
You said you won't believe any review unless it is blind-tested. I'd say you shouldn't believe any review except for your own cuz after all they are basically just people's personal impressions, but you should read as many as you can (if you have time and enjoy reading them) cuz they will at least give you a general idea of what majority of people think of that. However, like I said before, always take it with a graint of salt and do audition before making the purchase (if possible).
 
Whether or not the device is making big improvement is another story. It's very hard to quantify it cuz some may value a marginal difference for thousands of dollars and some others may ignore any difference and value them no more than a buck.
 
Lee

Click to expand...

Lee, Crazy Carl's blind test is corroborated by the various other blind tests which you can find on the internet. Where a series of tests are carried out that all end up with similar results, then you need to accept that, without evidence to the contrary, we should go with the test results, or do more tests to see if they give contradictory results. So please, rather than criticise Crazy Carl and his somewhat choice language and comments (sorry Crazy Carl, but you do yourself no favours here), do your own test.

I'm not claiming there is a large or even a small difference.  I am saying that the frame of mind with which he went into the test is important.  Esp if the purpose of the test was to prove there is no difference then there is a huge bias regardless of whether the test is "blind" or not.  Just saying his test in and of itself lacks any validity.  As for the tests you have mentioned... Ill read them later today but can't make any comment until then.  The problem with tests where the people don't know its a test is that they may not be listening critically in which case its very likely that audible differences will go unnoticed. The problem with them knowing they are being tested is the confirmation bias because they think something is gonna be different.  its a catch 22 IMO

I disagree. CC went into his tests to establish if if his first impressions were true or not. I am sure he would have actually been happier if the test had resulted in actually being able to tell the difference. CC, is that the case?
 
I also disagree that his test in itself lacks validity. (I accept that it was not the most thorough of blind tests, but the principles were all there) What it lacks is corroboration. Actually, what is lacked here and on so many other threads like this, is for people to do some research before they criticise.
 
All the posters on this thread who have attacked CC in isolation need to be aware that you are acting in ignorance of the blind/ABX tests that have been carried out for years now and they mainly corroborate CC, not you. 
 
In science, where one test is carried out and it points to a result, it is the norm to then repeat that test, to establish the original's integrity and validity and then go on to do similar testing to further establish if the result is valid. Audiophiles are dead against this, as the results so far threaten so many of their claims and beliefs. 

Quote:

prog rock man said:

I disagree. CC went into his tests to establish if if his first impressions were true or not. I am sure he would have actually been happier if the test had resulted in actually being able to tell the difference. CC, is that the case?

Click to expand...

Absolutely.  I payed money and I wanted to hear the difference.  However, I was buniased in my testing and the results were shown.

Well if there were small differences which he deemed to be not worth what he paid then he could very easily sabotage his own test (I'm not saying he would consciously do this but subconsciously)
My theory is that he did this test after being unimpressed with his purchase.  I find it hard to believe that there was not onc ounce of difference in the sound
between his onboard vs the sparrow but then again the sparrow is very low end itself and I'm completely unfamiliar with audio-gd amps.

The entire new head-fi even supports some of my claims.  In addition to much of it being totally broken, 1/3 of the web page is now sponsors, advertisements, and reviews all aimed at to getting people to buy more stuff.  You think they want blind test results getting around?

Quote:

crazy*carl said:

The entire new head-fi even supports some of my claims.  In addition to much of it being totally broken, 1/3 of the web page is now sponsors, advertisements, and reviews all aimed at to getting people to buy more stuff.  You think they want blind test results getting around?

Click to expand...

Your thread and the other thread Prog Rock Man was talking about isn't getting deleted is it?

Well if it did, that would be pretty ridiculous.

Quote:

cravenz said:

Your thread and the other thread Prog Rock Man was talking about isn't getting deleted is it?

Click to expand...

The HM-801 thread that showed how poorly a $800 player measured was moved to the Science forum. That's the forum's form of censoring, I think, because only people interested in science or arguing against science come down here. Fewer converts that way.