Originally Posted by limpidglitch
You'll just have to trust that the subjects are doing their best.
Have you ever been tested?
I've done the test myself, with someone to do the switching for me, which is how I found out that taking my time between switches helped.
Originally Posted by kraken2109
I think this thread may have gone slightly off topic...
Yes sorry about that, but it seems most of the responses above cover what I wanted to know so I won't hijack it much further.
Originally Posted by castleofargh
pretty much the opposite of what I experience. I could tell you a list of sonic differences from listening to the same gear with the same music file if you just give enough time to my brain to start making stuff up. and I would believe I'm right.
I wrote something just yesterday about some 3seconds lag that was already enough for me to feel insecure about my analysis (the time needed for me to unplug one source and replug the other one). I didn't know about that echoic memory thing(super interesting), but I guess it just explains what I always felt in practice.
I think you've misunderstood, the time in between the switch (the 3 seconds lag as you called it) is not what I'm referring to. That lag should be as minimal as possible so you get to hear the other source or whatever it is you're testing, right away. I was saying that given a small recording (say 30s), I need to listen to that recording for 5-15 minutes before switching between source (or whatever I'm testing) so that my ears can adapt to its sound signature before I can pick out any differences.
Originally Posted by esldude
Listen to what folks are telling you. It has indeed been tested rigorously. Subjects detect differences at lower levels with fast switching rather than with slower switching. Yes, the common argument you are making when tested doesn't work out to be true. You do less well if the switching is very long. Past 10 seconds and things fall off quite a bit. In speech intelligibility testing somewhere around 200 msec switching was needed for the most discriminating results. You probably feel much better and more confident with longer times between comparisons, but despite your feelings of confidence your accurate discrimination will be worse.
On this page, down in the middle of it read the PDF from a magazine article on Flying Blind Long Term Listening. There are more scholarly works on the subject. But this gets to the gist of it. And we'll see if you believe it or just retrench as stv104 and I think you will. We've been here, and done that about a million times. It gets old. You can supply all the credible info you want to most people, and they just refuse to believe it because they don't want to. Maybe you are different, I hope so. So far your postings follow right along with someone who we are wasting our time to converse with. Not trying to be lacking in respect for you, just being honest.
Ok I've finished reading that article, and what I'm saying is very different from what's argued in it, so let me be clearer. In the article, it's explained that long term listening (we're not talking about 15 minutes, then switch here, but about many many hours/days/weeks of listening without any switching) is not going to accurately help you find differences as opposed to a DBT ABX with switching.
I couldn't agree more with that, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that WITHIN AN ABX DBT, instead of listening for only a FEW SECONDS before switching, we should be listening for 5-15 minutes and THEN switch, so our ears can adapt somewhat to the sound signature before we switch, thus making the difference more obvious.
That being said, I do think that quick switching can be the better choice for some things (such as this thread for example, determining whether or not 2 samples, one at 116/44 and the other at 24/192, are different or not). However, when comparing gear, for example 2 different DACs, fast switching is more likely to confuse the brain than to help pick out differences. So if you're going to pick out one aspect (such as in the tests from the article, distortion), then quick switching is no doubt most effective and that's logical because you're listening for it during the test, so you don't need prolonged exposure to hear it - you either do or you don't. But comparing 2 different DACs, you're not listening just for distortion or any single aspect, there are many many things to compare and without taking your time with each, there is no way to accurately compare their sound.
So yes, I believe you and this article absolutely, but that's beside the point and it isn't what's ultimately interesting to me: knowing if different gear brings different sound and how. So you're right, I was too hasty before and only remembered back to the few ABX DBT tests I did myself comparing gear, without thinking about the usefulness of these tests to compare smaller aspects such as "is there or is there not distortion". For these kinds of tests, I completely agree, quick switching is the prerogative. My problem is that the same procedure is used when comparing gear and that seems flawed to me. I'm not trying to be stubborn, it just seems illogical.
Originally Posted by bigshot
I find that for myself, quick switching back and forth between samples is the best way to determine whether a difference exists between two very similar samples. In order to figure out exactly what the difference is, it takes a little longer on each sample. But after a minute or two on any sample, my ears adjust and I'm not getting anything out of it any more.
Yes I can see how that would be the case when comparing 2 short samples. But like I said above, when comparing 2 different DACs or amps or any other piece of gear, wouldn't you prefer to take the time to a) try a variety of recordings and b) listen long enough to register all the different ways it sounds?