Audio gd Sparrow Blind Test
Jun 16, 2010 at 3:52 AM Post #331 of 502
I think the problem with carl is that he doesnt know what he is looking for after the upgrade, you wont find the pin in the haystack if you don't know there is a pin there in the first place.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 4:31 AM Post #332 of 502


Quote:
I think the problem with carl is that he doesnt know what he is looking for after the upgrade, you wont find the pin in the haystack if you don't know there is a pin there in the first place.


on the counter, he could just as easily say that the pin is so darn small, whats the point of searching for it if it doesn't make that much of a difference if any at all? and that's the line of his argument, that the difference, if any, is so minute, that the cost of searching for it is not worth the trouble.
 
on the flip side, you could argue that the pin is a gem, diamond, etc. but hey. just putting it out there for the fun of it :)
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 6:38 AM Post #333 of 502
 
Quote:
I saw a commercial today during the NBA finals that was poking fun at tube amplifiers... ROFL this is so true.
 
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/acura_excuses_tube_amp
 
I mean, the fact that tube amps are even viewed by some this way really tells you they and the rest of hi-fi is kind of absurd.


That was great, now I want an Acura with a tube amp installed in it!
biggrin.gif

 
Jun 16, 2010 at 7:12 AM Post #334 of 502
Anyone here tried hi to super-hi end equipment, came away feeling that they perform no better than their computer sound cards and have since sold off their equipment so they could spend their money on more meaningful things?
 
I ask this because I have no doubt that for those whom high end equipment is out of financial reach, this thread would be particularly comforting. 
 
So much is said about placebo effect on those who spend money and imagine returns on their expense where none exist.  This is surely true in some instances.  However, there are those who salivate over being able to seek solace in the possibility that they're listening to similar quality sound through their low end gear.  IMO, it's this latter factor that has fueled this thread so interestingly.  It's this latter factor that leads to sweeping conclusions after limited experience.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 7:48 AM Post #335 of 502
The closest thing I've had to such an experience was taking the T1 for a 30 minute test drive and deciding it wasn't worth the price.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM Post #336 of 502
I don't expect alot of people to agree with me, after all this is a headphone enthusiast forum! But there all these products that people just read about and buy because of head-fi's all knowing recommendation.  Items like little dot amp, audio gd fun, compass, and sparrow,  ibasso. The list goes on.  Head-fi is a huge market for all these companies.  I wouldn't have a problem with this if these products actually made a difference.  No I haven't heard all of them, but I have heard alot and not once has any of these lower end products made any difference.  As for the the absurdly priced stuff, I can only imagine how little you get what you pay for... $1000 tube amps, I mean common.  When did people abandon reason for insanity?  I think there is a reason technically savvy people I know (like engineers and scientists) never get more than a sound cards for their audio experience.  Most just stick to onboard sound these days.
 
I found myself becoming on of those absurd audiophiles, making comments on stuff I did not hear, and being a snob to everyone else when talking about audio, but I caught myself and saved my soul while I still could.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM Post #337 of 502
Quote:
I found myself becoming on of those absurd audiophiles, making comments on stuff I did not hear, and being a snob to everyone else when talking about audio, but I caught myself and saved my soul while I still could.


You talk about it as if it's a disease. That, I think, is the problem with this thread. You may be right, I wouldn't doubt it. In fact I believe it. But the way you went about (and continue to go about it despite absolutely nothing changing in your perspective for 23 pages) is aggressive, offensive, and self-centered. A single test leads you to sweeping comments about all of audiophilia. When hobbyists understandably defend their harmless pastime you call them snobs, absurdities, consumerist slaves. They have as much right to buy these products as you have not to.
 
I want to make this clear: Your point is useless until more people come forward with blind tests and better methodology. It's a start, but you cannot take a single test and create a theory based on it. Especially not a blind test by one such as you who obviously has an agenda, biasing the results. That's terrible science. Again, your test of one person of two/three sources of 8 trials holds no bearing on the rest of audiophilia. So please, stop waving it around as if you are our much-needed savior.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:09 PM Post #339 of 502


Quote:
I don't expect alot of people to agree with me, after all this is a headphone enthusiast forum! But there all these products that people just read about and buy because of head-fi's all knowing recommendation.  Items like little dot amp, audio gd fun, compass, and sparrow,  ibasso. The list goes on.  Head-fi is a huge market for all these companies.  I wouldn't have a problem with this if these products actually made a difference.  No I haven't heard all of them, but I have heard alot and not once has any of these lower end products made any difference.  As for the the absurdly priced stuff, I can only imagine how little you get what you pay for... $1000 tube amps, I mean common.  When did people abandon reason for insanity?  I think there is a reason technically savvy people I know (like engineers and scientists) never get more than a sound cards for their audio experience.  Most just stick to onboard sound these days.
 
I found myself becoming on of those absurd audiophiles, making comments on stuff I did not hear, and being a snob to everyone else when talking about audio, but I caught myself and saved my soul while I still could.


Carl, as much as I'd like to support you, ya really going off on your own here. That was uncalled for to some extent and will not gain you many friends.
 
I believe you have said it yourself a few times or in the alternative, you accepted that people have different perceptions of sound; I for one, advocate that. You at some point, have also talked about the law of diminishing returns, and I can tell you that that applies to many many hobbies as well. People pay what they pay cos they want to; it's all good and fine if you conduct the test and would like to educate the masses and I'm on your side on that and I agree. Further, many of us have agreed that the expensive equipment doesn't contribute a lot to everything or much at all in the sense it's like we have to pay so much more to squeeze that little ounce more.
 
What you are doing here is firing a shot and attracting a lot of unwanted and unnecessary attention to yourself. Some, I think, with a better mind, have decided to ignore your broad line of attack.
 
Until you have tested the equipment; the $1,000 amps, I haven't myself, you have no experience or right to comment on them; which is why I don't. I'm learning. If I have the money, I'd pay if I'm sure it made a difference, but if it doesn't, I wouldn't pay for it either, just like you. But this boils down again to sound being subjective.
 
Carl, please refrain yourself from firing a broadside that will help you no further. Some of us do agree with you, or many do. But some are also willing to pay for that extra bit that has been suggested before. If you wish to carry the discourse on, sure, but be civil with your tone, we are all civilised people here and it is important that we respect each other as individuals.
 
There are many many more arguments where once it goes into elite competition, the marginal improvement in technology is negligible or scarcely obvious at best, e.g. my pool cues (different wood and type of splicing, supposedly making the shot more accurate), professional sports (soccer boots), photography equipment, and more. Sure, the step up from beginner to say intermediate will see a difference in the quality, but the step further is marginal and based on diminishing returns. Though for more popular technology, like photography, there is a larger need to invent and be competitive.
 
Anyway, I've taken some offence to what you've said, and I don't mean any malice by replying here, but I'm someone who has a view somewhat similar to yours and even I myself am rather worried with the line or argument you are using now.

 
Quote:
You talk about it as if it's a disease. That, I think, is the problem with this thread. You may be right, I wouldn't doubt it. In fact I believe it. But the way you went about (and continue to go about it despite absolutely nothing changing in your perspective for 23 pages) is aggressive, offensive, and self-centered. A single test leads you to sweeping comments about all of audiophilia. When hobbyists understandably defend their harmless pastime you call them snobs, absurdities, consumerist slaves. They have as much right to buy these products as you have not to.
 
I want to make this clear: Your point is useless until more people come forward with blind tests and better methodology. It's a start, but you cannot take a single test and create a theory based on it. Especially not a blind test by one such as you who obviously has an agenda, biasing the results. That's terrible science. Again, your test of one person of two/three sources of 8 trials holds no bearing on the rest of audiophilia. So please, stop waving it around as if you are our much-needed savior.


I second the bit in bold; Carl, you don't have to do more, you've stated your opinion and that's all well and good. You have to accept the fact that when you posted this, questions will be raised and there would be doubters and believers both the same. But you should never let it get personal and that is where I think it has gone wrong and in terms of testing, take what others say as improvements, or if you don't wish to, leave it.
 
My opinion of course.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:11 PM Post #340 of 502
I'll probably do my own blind test once this intense summer semester's over and I have time to enjoy a new rig... I'm pretty confident about it, for example when I sight test amps at the store there's these little markers, like on the Open Your Ears track where the Persuasions sing "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Off" at 0:49 the way 'fooool' sounds was different - both the Concerto and EAR90 did it in a way that sent chills down my spine, but it wasn't present with the Burson HA160. But of course, I can't prove it's real until I do it blind. 
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:22 PM Post #341 of 502


Quote:
Of course you are speaking for yourself, with your own ears, yes?
 
Problems arise when one person tries to extrapolate their own subjective experience into everyone else's.


There is an alternative problem, which is the weight of combined evidence being ignored. This thread has three times the activity of this one...
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/75
 
....which gathers together numerous blind/ABX tests and where the evidence very much points at people not being able to, or struggling to hear differences. There have already been 'if only' posts on this thread, where actually such tests have been carried out. So, 'if only' people did a bit more research on blind/ABX testing. But ignorance is bliss and not confronting an accepted norm is easier.
 
If anything this thread adds to the above thread on audiophile claims and myths, then it becomes more reasonable to extrapolate that result to everyone else's experience. This post has the OP as a single 'easy' target. My other post is far harder to attack, so it has been left. 
 
This boils down to, if you want to disbelieve blind/ABX or criticise them, do your own or maybe be more accepting of an unpalatable truth.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM Post #342 of 502


Quote:
Anyone here tried hi to super-hi end equipment, came away feeling that they perform no better than their computer sound cards and have since sold off their equipment so they could spend their money on more meaningful things?
 
I ask this because I have no doubt that for those whom high end equipment is out of financial reach, this thread would be particularly comforting. 
 
So much is said about placebo effect on those who spend money and imagine returns on their expense where none exist.  This is surely true in some instances.  However, there are those who salivate over being able to seek solace in the possibility that they're listening to similar quality sound through their low end gear.  IMO, it's this latter factor that has fueled this thread so interestingly.  It's this latter factor that leads to sweeping conclusions after limited experience.


Definitely, though in comparison to low to mid end hifi systems. I have yet to hear anything, from Linn, Naim, Krell, Moon, ProAc, Sonus Faber, Tannoy and all the stuff that I have heard at hifi demos, costing up to £24,000 (for the Linn) that seriously blew me away. If anything, they have made me realise spending that amount of money is because you can, not because you have to.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM Post #343 of 502


Quote:
I want to make this clear: Your point is useless until more people come forward with blind tests and better methodology. It's a start, but you cannot take a single test and create a theory based on it. Especially not a blind test by one such as you who obviously has an agenda, biasing the results. That's terrible science. Again, your test of one person of two/three sources of 8 trials holds no bearing on the rest of audiophilia. So please, stop waving it around as if you are our much-needed savior.


They have and have been doing so for years, google ABX and blind tests/testing and audio/audiophile or check out this thread as shown above
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths/75
 
But as I said before, few want to do so as they prefer ignorance rather than dealing with the issue.
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35 PM Post #344 of 502
I was thinking about this post in another thread (headphone measurements)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Training our ears to identify pitch/frequency is very useful in the audio world.  Learning the correlation between all of the various sorts of measurements that we can to and how that translates into what we hear is very instructive, helping us describe and understand what we're hearing and knowing what we want to improve upon.

 
I was thinking back to the days when I played flute in HS band and tuning the instrument ... back then I sure knew and cared what an out of tune flute sounded like, yo. Years later, I'm not as discerning. This might carry into reproduction, even if a headphone fails to get the tone of a note right I might not notice ... 
 
Jun 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM Post #345 of 502
I have been looking at that thread and came across this extensive test:
http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
 
It concluded that amplifiers sound differences are "so minute"
 
It is amazing that all this is out there, yet many people at head-fi just purchase and rave about all this equipment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top