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 28  

post #406 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

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. 


When did we start comparing sources to transducers exactly?  Especially Stax that have their own set of "characteristics".

 

They can sound fun, though I wouldn't invest too much if you're buying them for accuracy :|

 

Regardless, I'm pretty sure Carl has spoken of the difference transducers make (i.e. a lot).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

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.


Price alone can create pre-concieved notions that present bias.  Nonetheless, very few would argue against transducers sounding different, they can measure all across the board with varying dips, peaks, and dispersion characteristics (and high levels of THD if we start heading towards super low-end, lower than Porta-Pro low).  We could also include decay, though I'm of the opinion most decent quality headphones have it under control.

 

 

 

Arguably, in some ways true HiFi (reproductive accuracy) is easier to attain than the tuned sound some audiophiles would sell their first (and maybe the second) born for.  Do you treat your gear as instruments or as tools is what it comes down to IMO.

post #407 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.


Blind testing is a valuable means of testing claims, particularly that something is better than something else. A failed blind test means that the product claim is not correct. Can you show why Carl's test was a false negative?

post #408 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post




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. 


Except that religion and politics are not able to be subjected to scientific testing where the test can be replicated and validated. Carl's blind test can be replicated and validated or not as the case may be. Anyone else out there got the same kit as Carl who can replicate his test to see if it can be validated?

 

A blind test between a Stax and an ipod, I would hope that the Stax would be easily identifiable. So again hopefully someone with both will do a blind test. If that blind test found an easily identifiable difference, that would not invalidate Carl's test. 

post #409 of 502

There's only about a million different ways that Carl's test was flawed, Prog Rock Man. Others have said them many times, do you really have to ask me to name them for you.

post #410 of 502

Yes please haloxt. Once you have done that could you then do a similar critique of all of the blind tests here...

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

 

post #411 of 502

There's plenty of explanations on this thread. Are you telling me they are inadequate?

post #412 of 502

Tests are always flawed if they don't give us the results we want....

post #413 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

There's plenty of explanations on this thread. Are you telling me they are inadequate?


I agree that the number of tests was too small and it would have been better if CC was accompanied by someone else who also did the test and did not communicate with CC until the test was over. The other criticisms I do not agree with. 

 

But the main point is that CCs test does point to him not being able to tell the difference, which adds to the other blind tests out there, which find no difference. 

 

The whole tone of this thread is as Mochan states, the result is not what many do not want to hear, so people come up with spurious reasons to discredit it. However, the one test which would really prove one way or another, is for someone else to replicate the original test. Then we get different ears and corroboration and another 8 or so results.

post #414 of 502

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mochan View Post

Tests are always flawed if they don't give us the results we want....


The converse is also true in that tests are always right when they give us the results we want.  No more spending on audiophilia.   The elitists with their very expensive gear are the idiots and not us.  etc. etc.  

 

That sort of "smart" comment goes both ways, you see. 

 

Anyway, when I first heard my HD800's, I was particularly taken up by the level of detail compared to my HD650's.  Now, I'm not really hearing that much of a difference in detail.  Any explanations for this?  I have one, i.e., the filling in the blank phenomenon.  How does this factor in the DBT exercise?


Edited by aimlink - 6/19/10 at 11:42am
post #415 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by aimlink View Post


The converse is also true in that tests are always right when they give us the results we want.  No more spending on audiophilia.   The elitists with their very expensive gear are the idiots and not us.  etc. etc.  

 

It goes both ways, you see. 

 

Anyway, when I first heard my HD800's, I was particularly taken up by the level of detail compared to my HD650's.  Now, I'm not really hearing that much of a difference in detail.  Any explanations for this?  I have one, i.e., the filling in the blank phenomenon.  How does this factor in the DBT exercise?


How flawed a blind test is is easily established by repeating it. If further tests get the same results then the original test is likely to be valid. If further tests find different results, then the original test is not likely to be valid. With a valid test you get a result, whether you like it or not.

 

Your experience with with Senns suggests that after your initial 'psycho-acoustic excitement' with the HD800s you then found that actually, they are not that different from your HD650s. Can you blind test them, or would you be able to tell which is which just by wearing them?

post #416 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

Your experience with with Senns suggests that after your initial 'psycho-acoustic excitement' with the HD800s you then found that actually, they are not that different from your HD650s. Can you blind test them, or would you be able to tell which is which just by wearing them?


Acoustic excitement... cute.  I really didn't know what to expect.  It was an adventure really.  Anyway, they sound different enough in other ways that I'd easily distinguish them in a blind test.  No concern there whatsoever.

 

Have you ever read text with many letters dropped and still fully understand the text with all the letters missing.  Same for visual stimuli?  We seem to have this ability to fill in the blanks.  IOW's, once I know the details through the HD800's, I'm now able to 'hear' them in the HD650's.  I'll be darned, but I can't think of any other reason for what I'm experiencing.  Dare I say that this may be an important piece of humanity to consider when DBX'ing any sort of stimulus that's especially close in sound, sight, taste etc?

post #417 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post

But the main point is that CCs test does point to him not being able to tell the difference, which adds to the other blind tests out there, which find no difference. 


Which other blind tests? Are there other blind tests in your thread that compare onboard sound to entry-level external DACs? I know there are some comparing entry/mid-level to high-end, but those can't be used as support because the equipment is not the same. I want to see more onboard comparisons.

 

What I'd really want to see is high-end vs. onboard. Not because I expect a difference, but because I want to see the faces on those dwelling in Summit-fi when the results come back: 


Edited by Head Injury - 6/19/10 at 12:06pm
post #418 of 502
Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man View Post


How flawed a blind test is is easily established by repeating it. If further tests get the same results then the original test is likely to be valid. If further tests find different results, then the original test is not likely to be valid. With a valid test you get a result, whether you like it or not


The keyword is valid. What happens if all the DBT's are invalid?

 

You think that more DBT's will help. It will not help when people are too incompetent to do proper DBT's or interpret results. The way head-fi sound science forum is, it's like the aftermath of a tornado. More DBT's is the last thing you guys need. And I accuse both sides of being crazy :p, it's like two people strangling each other to death while drowning in a swimming pool. This is truly the craziest audio science forum I've come across on the internet.


Edited by haloxt - 6/19/10 at 12:06pm
post #419 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post


The keyword is valid. What happens if all the DBT's are invalid?

 

You think that more DBT's will help. It will not help when people are too incompetent to do proper DBT's or interpret results. The way head-fi sound science forum is, it's like the aftermath of a tornado. More DBT's is the last thing you guys need. And I accuse both sides of being crazy :p, it's like two people strangling each other to death while drowning in a swimming pool. This is truly the craziest audio science forum I've come across on the internet.



It is true that doing a good DBT does require some skill and there are some fundamental requirements:

 

1. Stuiimuli must be level matched to +/- 0.1db or so

2. Only one variable is changed at a time ie. Source. codec, flter, cable, DAC, X  and so on, bit only 1 thing at a time

3. There must be sufficient trials , ideally no less than 16 but 20 is better

 

but after that it is not rocket science.

 

I agree that there is much craziness in the Science forum, but there is also some rational critical thought, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater and go back to unfettered subjectivism at least not here. There are many examples of well proctored DBTs as well as poor ones, (Meyer and Moran, Benjamin and Gannon, Blech and Yang, Masters and Clark, Ashihara et al and so on).


Edited by nick_charles - 6/19/10 at 12:28pm
post #420 of 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post


The keyword is valid. What happens if all the DBT's are invalid?

 

You think that more DBT's will help. It will not help when people are too incompetent to do proper DBT's or interpret results. The way head-fi sound science forum is, it's like the aftermath of a tornado. More DBT's is the last thing you guys need. And I accuse both sides of being crazy :p, it's like two people strangling each other to death while drowning in a swimming pool. This is truly the craziest audio science forum I've come across on the internet.


Rather than casting doubt by speculation, provide some evidence please. We need more DBTs to find out which side is correct.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Which other blind tests? Are there other blind tests in your thread that compare onboard sound to entry-level external DACs? I know there are some comparing entry/mid-level to high-end, but those can't be used as support because the equipment is not the same. I want to see more onboard comparisons.

 

What I'd really want to see is high-end vs. onboard. Not because I expect a difference, but because I want to see the faces on those dwelling in Summit-fi when the results come back: 


The numerous other blind tests out there that show doubt in audiophiles claims for real sound differences between amps to cables. I was meaning generally, not specific to CCs original test, which i would love to see repeated by someone else. 

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