And you're talking as if people listen to their music by looking at number. To me that's all irrelevant, let them turn up or down the volume to suit what they think sound best.
I don't care if it's bias, who cares if phone A has perfect measurement but could never match phone B with flawed measurement no matter how high you crank the volume.
And you're talking as if people listen to their music by looking at number. To me that's all irrelevant, let them turn up or down the volume to suit what they think sound best.
I don't care if it's bias, who cares if phone A has perfect measurement but could never match phone B with flawed measurement no matter how high you crank the volume.
Because in the case of upstream components where differences can allegedly be subtle to begin with, not properly level-matching indeed renders the comparisons invalid.
It's also a great way to waste money on purported differences that don't actually exist in controlled practice.
Have there been any documented experiments conducted regarding the placebo effect and audio equipment? It would be interesting to see how many people would "hear" an improvement in sound just by giving them a plastic box that did nothing to the sound.
Have there been any documented experiments conducted regarding the placebo effect and audio equipment? It would be interesting to see how many people would "hear" an improvement in sound just by giving them a plastic box that did nothing to the sound.
I would love to take part in an activity like that... every A/B-DBT I have participated in was highly educational. I learned more about myself than anything equipment-related. For example, I am FAR more frequency sensitive than distortion sensitive. Levels of THD that sound like nails on chalkboard to many... really don't have much affect on me one way or another. I have listened to some DIY setups where the owners wen through crazy lengths to keep system THD below (say) .000006%, or some paper calculated amount. I was like "Mmmmeh... OK I guess." My brain frequently mistakes frequency boosts as time-based resonant artifacts. So... treble-bright cans to me sound faster transiently, when in reality the cans have a fair amount of resonant decay.
We should have a "blindfold meet"... GTG. Where everything would be listened to A/B-DBT format.
It would be nice if every amp/dac review and comparison were accompanied by an ABX test. I think the results would be pretty shocking, and honestly, I would not be surprised if 99% of amp/dac impressions were invalidated. For example, I'd bet that everything written under Sound Observations here is all in the reviewer's head: http://www.headfonia.com/jdslabs-the-next-level-the-c5/ -- those are some wildly specific anecdotal impressions.
It would be nice if every amp/dac review and comparison were accompanied by an ABX test. I think the results would be pretty shocking, and honestly, I would not be surprised if 99% of amp/dac impressions were invalidated. For example, I'd bet that everything written under Sound Observations here is all in the reviewer's head: http://www.headfonia.com/jdslabs-the-next-level-the-c5/ -- those are some wildly specific anecdotal impressions.
There ends up being people you respect and trust. In the end amps are still like cloths, as some fit and some do not. It's all relative to personal experience even with the most sincer reviews. Then again the stereo magazines have a nice paid-for add which paid the salary of the writer. How could anyone think some of those reviews are correct?
Then again the stereo magazines have a nice paid-for add which paid the salary of the writer. How could anyone think some of those reviews are correct?
Yes, I often wonder if even some 'semi-professional' reviewers on here who I assume are sent demo audio equipment for review by the various manufacturers are also tempted to be less critical of equipment in fear of being shunned in future by the manufacturers because of their impartial honesty.
I used to subscribe to stereo review (remember them?), now sound & vision. I loved that magazine. It presented some basic data along with a qualitative review for each featured review.
I found the reviews to be reasonably balanced: if there was a problem or limitation, they'd mention it. However, they'd almost always give it a positive spin (ie 'thd is higher than average, but you can't hear it').
As far as I can tell, the audiophile market has ceded almost completely to the audio/video market. High end audio equipment seemed to be a big deal in the 80's/90's and now, with 'flawless' digital, hdmi, etc, the transparently obvious snake oil of certain high end brands (monster cable), there is less of a place for 'golden ears' to detect the fine nuances between turntable cartridges, tube amps, much less high end cassette players (remember the nakamichi's??? ).
Well, we can see it on the market, where products are becoming available that put an end to the audio jewellery nonsense and offer great performance for arguably fair prices. We see it with the HRT music streamer, the Fiio products, the Xonar essence sound cards (that even ship with reports of measured testing), etc.
"Better" is a relative term for sound whereby different sound signatures may sound either better/worse depending on the listener. It has less to do with the volume, and more about the actual quality of the audio, and what the speaker can produce.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
