Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audio gd Sparrow Blind Test
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio gd Sparrow Blind Test - Page 27  

post #391 of 502


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post




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.

isn't this what I just said? that not to simply trust any test or review but do you own cuz everybody is different. I didn't say Carl's result is wrong. I said that it shouldn't apply to others. Like you said, "do your own test" cuz you may get different result. Whether or not you accept others' result is your call. People can't force you to accept that, can they?

 

 

Lee
 

post #392 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


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.


ah didn't know that...if someone does testing and stuff then I could see how it goes there, but otherwise bummer

post #393 of 502

 

Myinan I was understanding you to mean, correctly that CCs test on its own does not have much validity. And I was saying that with the other tests, CCs does. No one is going to able to force those results on others, particularly when they are so challenging to accepted beliefs. I agree with you there as well. 

 

Sadly, as I do think it is wrong to make claims that are unjustifiable, the likes of myself and Crazy Carl are going to be one of only a few who accept that it terms of sound quality, many if not most audiophile claims are highly dubious.

post #394 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

 

Myinan I was understanding you to mean, correctly that CCs test on its own does not have much validity. And I was saying that with the other tests, CCs does. No one is going to able to force those results on others, particularly when they are so challenging to accepted beliefs. I agree with you there as well. 

 

Sadly, as I do think it is wrong to make claims that are unjustifiable, the likes of myself and Crazy Carl are going to be one of only a few who accept that it terms of sound quality, many if not most audiophile claims are highly dubious.

Well said. I don't think people dislike CC's posts because "he accept that it term of SQ, many if not most audiophile claims are highly dubious". They dislike them because CC's was trying to call it the truth and think everyone else should perceive the same. Seriously, I laughed at some reviews too because of the way people describe the sound and how the SQ is different. I mean, sound good or bad, In the end it depends on a bunch of words that were never coined to in any way reference sound, everyone agreeing (somehow) that these are good words but everyone having a slightly different interpretation of what the words mean,  everyone even knowing which frequencies are the bass, mid and treble...It's amazing that we are ever able to convey any useful information!

 

Lee

post #395 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyinan View Post



...It's amazing that we are ever able to convey any useful information!

 

Lee


LOL, and I do not do that very often 

post #396 of 502

The best way to integrate placebo in a DBT sampling when trying to establish some kind of consensus would be to inform the test subjects that a minority portion of them would be getting a placebo (no real A/B'ing of gear) while the rest would be getting the actual test, so they all would know that for some of them there would be no difference. That is the ethical solution in medicine anyways, because if people know they are getting a placebo it won't work, but not informing them of the possibility of placebo in the testing/treatment is ethically suspect. It would be difficult to do it that way, but group consensus DBTs are very difficult to implement anyways. Anyways I think that method would translate.


Edited by grokit - 6/18/10 at 1:35am
post #397 of 502

I think that the Hifi Wigwam mains cable test, which included two cables that were identical, is a good way of introducing a placebo of sorts.

post #398 of 502

Carl, after all that's been written since the original post, I went back and reread your original post again: it's actually quite reasonable!  I don't really disagree with any of it.  You say that onboard sound cards and ipods have gotten quite good - correct.  You say that there's very little difference between these and some of the most inexpensive DAC/amps, and speculate that there's probably an incredibly small difference between components that would cost much, much more - correct again.  You say that the law of diminishing returns applies in hi-fi more than in many other things - correct again.   You declare yourself uninterested in hi-fi anymore because of these things, and will now settle for mid-fi - I feel the same way!  I didn't have enough money to get incredible headphones and an incredible amp, and I felt that I was wasting money buying an incredible amp and an incredible DAC to try and improve mediocre headphones.  You correctly state that the headphones are the single most important thing, which is why I sold my expensive DAC/amps and used the money to buy the JH13s (used, at a VERY good price.)  

 

So basically, I think everything you've said is eminently reasonable.  The only thing that bugs me, and seems to bug a lot of other people as well, is that you additionally seem to be saying that hi-fi itself, in general, is just idiotic, that everyone who thinks they hear minor differences is just fooling themselves into wasting their money, and so forth.  And your basis for this seems to be that everyone doesn't immediately adopt double blind testing in all their reviews.  

 

But I just don't see the basis for these larger claims.  On the contrary, I've found most of the posts on all kinds of equipment by serious reviewers are actually incredibly accurate and reasonable.  They'll tell you that as you spend more and more, you get less and less.  They'll tell you that two amps are virtually indistinguishable, even though one costs much more than the other.  They'll tell you that a cheap amp and dac can sound as good or better than an amp twice or three times as much. They'll tell you how to build a fantastic sounding hi-fi setup for less than $150.  All this is quite reasonable.  I don't see anyone, except for the random crank, who goes around claiming that if you don't spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment your sound will suck.  I just don't see that being the consensus view on any of the forums.

 

And the thing with DBT is not only how it's done, but what it actually proves.  I'm sure we could find plenty of people who couldn't distinguish the JH13 from the apple IEM.  Or the 580 from a decent set of $80 headphones.  But what does that prove?  Simply that that person's hearing is not that well trained (or may be physically deficient.)

 

If I were to do a DBT (which I will, for fun, once I get my JH13s back next week), I'm not going to listen to a source, and then listen to another source after a bit, and so forth.  That's not a good way to distinguish critical details, because my (untrained) ear cannot remember sound that accurately.  I'm sure they'd all just sound 'good.'  Instead, I'd have someone rapidly switch between A (

macbookpro headphone out) and B (macbookpro to sparrow) over and over again, on the same piece of music, with the levels matched, and write down all the differences in sound I can find and which I find more preferable and why.  Then I'll put the winner up against the D4. 

If the onboard sound sounds better, GREAT, I'll sell the amps and have a cleaner desk.  But if there's a small but noticable superiority to one of the new DAC/Amps, then I'm perfectly happy spending $180 to bring out the potential of the JH13s.  

post #399 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVU View Post

Carl, after all that's been written since the original post, I went back and reread your original post again: it's actually quite reasonable!  I don't really disagree with any of it.  You say that onboard sound cards and ipods have gotten quite good - correct.  You say that there's very little difference between these and some of the most inexpensive DAC/amps, and speculate that there's probably an incredibly small difference between components that would cost much, much more - correct again.  You say that the law of diminishing returns applies in hi-fi more than in many other things - correct again.   You declare yourself uninterested in hi-fi anymore because of these things, and will now settle for mid-fi - I feel the same way!  I didn't have enough money to get incredible headphones and an incredible amp, and I felt that I was wasting money buying an incredible amp and an incredible DAC to try and improve mediocre headphones.  You correctly state that the headphones are the single most important thing, which is why I sold my expensive DAC/amps and used the money to buy the JH13s (used, at a VERY good price.)  

 

So basically, I think everything you've said is eminently reasonable.  The only thing that bugs me, and seems to bug a lot of other people as well, is that you additionally seem to be saying that hi-fi itself, in general, is just idiotic, that everyone who thinks they hear minor differences is just fooling themselves into wasting their money, and so forth.  And your basis for this seems to be that everyone doesn't immediately adopt double blind testing in all their reviews.  

 

But I just don't see the basis for these larger claims.  On the contrary, I've found most of the posts on all kinds of equipment by serious reviewers are actually incredibly accurate and reasonable.  They'll tell you that as you spend more and more, you get less and less.  They'll tell you that two amps are virtually indistinguishable, even though one costs much more than the other.  They'll tell you that a cheap amp and dac can sound as good or better than an amp twice or three times as much. They'll tell you how to build a fantastic sounding hi-fi setup for less than $150.  All this is quite reasonable.  I don't see anyone, except for the random crank, who goes around claiming that if you don't spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment your sound will suck.  I just don't see that being the consensus view on any of the forums.

 

And the thing with DBT is not only how it's done, but what it actually proves.  I'm sure we could find plenty of people who couldn't distinguish the JH13 from the apple IEM.  Or the 580 from a decent set of $80 headphones.  But what does that prove?  Simply that that person's hearing is not that well trained (or may be physically deficient.)

 

If I were to do a DBT (which I will, for fun, once I get my JH13s back next week), I'm not going to listen to a source, and then listen to another source after a bit, and so forth.  That's not a good way to distinguish critical details, because my (untrained) ear cannot remember sound that accurately.  I'm sure they'd all just sound 'good.'  Instead, I'd have someone rapidly switch between A (

macbookpro headphone out) and B (macbookpro to sparrow) over and over again, on the same piece of music, with the levels matched, and write down all the differences in sound I can find and which I find more preferable and why.  Then I'll put the winner up against the D4. 

If the onboard sound sounds better, GREAT, I'll sell the amps and have a cleaner desk.  But if there's a small but noticable superiority to one of the new DAC/Amps, then I'm perfectly happy spending $180 to bring out the potential of the JH13s.  


Great post, apart from your conclusion highlighted in bold. A failed blind test proves that there is no difference in sound to that person. A few failed blind tests indicate a potential for there to be little or no sound difference. Many failed blind tests prove that it has become more reasonable to conclude that most would fail a blind test. The repetition of the tests with different subjects and equipment covers any supposed deafness on the part of the subject.

 

Poor old Crazy Carl has been repeatedly attacked for his one test. That is not fair. He has done his bit to contribute to all the other blind/ABX tests out there. It is harder to attack the results of all of the different tests and I am afraid audiophiles do themselves no favours by ignoring the elephant in the room.

post #400 of 502
Thread Starter 

I agree, wonderfully summarized and excellent post.

post #401 of 502

A blind test that fails only proves that the test failed, for whatever reasons. Not to investigate these reasons is to be unscientific, and I think many claiming to be scientific are too arrogant to face false negatives. If you are oblivious to false negatives like Carl is being for his test, then you are unscientific. There is nothing scientific about Carl's test to be honest. He's free to think what he wants, but his test is flawed, worthless data for anyone. Its only use is like a warning sign to people of how not to do a blind test, and how not to interpret the results, etc.

post #402 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Poor old Crazy Carl has been repeatedly attacked for his one test. That is not fair. He has done his bit to contribute to all the other blind/ABX tests out there. It is harder to attack the results of all of the different tests and I am afraid audiophiles do themselves no favours by ignoring the elephant in the room.


I don't think you should treat Carl like some martyr. Not many people are angry about his initial blind test. He said his bit, which many disagreed with yes, but that's not the spark of the argument. The real reason why people are so angry is because he's taken it upon himself to say everyone else is wrong.

post #403 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

A blind test that fails only proves that the test failed, for whatever reasons. Not to investigate these reasons is to be unscientific, and I think many claiming to be scientific are too arrogant to face false negatives. If you are oblivious to false negatives like Carl is being for his test, then you are unscientific. There is nothing scientific about Carl's test to be honest. He's free to think what he wants, but his test is flawed, worthless data for anyone. Its only use is like a warning sign to people of how not to do a blind test, and how not to interpret the results, etc.


I would say that Carl's test works for Carl, and Carl only. His specific results do not apply to anyone else, and the flawed part is his assertion that it does, not to mention the assertion of cynically negative generalities towards the hifi world as a whole. His test is therefore not entirely worthless, but it does not extrapolate into anyone else's listening experience.

 

I would agree that the reviews on Head-fi are based upon honest listening experiences, and most are without bias, placebo, or hidden agenda. As an example, here is a recent comparison of high-end headphones by a new Head-fier that to me is as pure as the driven snow. I see no evidence that there were any pre-conceived notions or conscious or subconscious bias present in it. It doesn't seem at all related to trying to justify the admittedly recent purchase. The reviewer is just trying to sort out the difference between the two headphones and share those perceived differences with the community as a whole.

 

If anyone can point out otherwise from that review with specific citations than maybe I am missing something, but I really don't think so. That thread in general is full of people actually trying to figure what flaws the LCD-2 may have, not to prop it up as the next end-all-be-all headphone, which it evidently may be. It is an expensive headphone, but the consensus seems to be that it is a relative bargain for the experiential rewards that it offers the lucky listener.

 

The comparative review that I pointed is of course entirely subjective as it is based upon one listener's A/B experience, just like Carl's DBT test is entirely subjective as it is based upon his own unique DBT experience.


Edited by grokit - 6/18/10 at 10:51pm
post #404 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post


I would say that Carl's test works for Carl, and Carl only. His specific results do not apply to anyone else, and the flawed part is his assertion that it does, not to mention the assertion of cynically negative generalities towards the hifi world as a whole. His test is therefore not entirely worthless, but it does not extrapolate into anyone else's listening experience.


QFT.

 

Pity Carl doesn't understand this.  He reminds me of friends who became religious or political in university, then ran around trying to persuade everyone else to, and that their truth was the only one.

 

I hope one day Carl can compare his iPod to, say, a high-end Stax rig using high-quality recordings, then he might get a shock. 

post #405 of 502

If Carl is still interested in contributing to the community, there's lots of things to talk about. Headphones, IEMs, portables, encoding methodologies, HRTF technologies, music, how to build a Cmoy even if he can't tell DBT the difference   jkjkjk just teasing for that last one. Everyone here agrees to disagree about some things.


Edited by Ypoknons - 6/18/10 at 9:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audio gd Sparrow Blind Test