[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
There are huge differences between CDPs, amps, headphones, ICs tubes, etc.

To hear these differences you must have a top quality system from one end to the other. Then you sub one component in that system for something else. You will hear a big difference if you know good sound. Sometimes one component is better than the other but different, but sometime they are of the same quality level in spite of being different - but they will be different.



Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 If the differences are huge then surely any half decent system (transparent) will reveal them i.e my M3 and Sennheiser HD580s should be good enough for me to detect a gross difference, both are recognised as good quality but not really top end. If they cant do this then the difference cannot be huge. If the differences are subtle then it becomes arguable that there are differences at all. You are right that you must only change one variable at a time oitherwise it is fatally flawed, this of course includes level matching which is sometimes tricky - my digital sources have very different output levels the NAD carries a 2V signal and my Entech a 2.5V signal. In that sense rapid ABing is flawed as I have to adjust the volume.

Art: True, any half decent system will reveal big differences. However, smaller, and even subtle, differences become huge with experience - once heard you can never go back and be completely happy.


Remember, your system is only as good as the worst component in it. This is because the worst component reduces the system down to it as the lowest common denominator.

For instance, ICs can make a big difference in a great system but this difference is blurred to insignificance in a bad system.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Originally Posted by drarthurwells: Art: No. You must know what you are listening to, and frequently be aware of it while listening for an extended period (3 days or more where the longer the better). The idea is to memory associate the component with its characteristics, particularly subtle ones. Expectancy bias only works at first - then is supplanted with realistic perception - might take a day or two.

Well, I dont think we will ever agree on this. I do not see that not knowing the make/model of the CDP would be a problem. as I see it you just need to know that they are different at the end you will prefer one or the other and then you can see which one you chose. As for Expectancy bias as a transient phenomenon It has been a long time since I studied Psychology (BA 1979, MSc 1991) so I cannot remember if I came across this, can you cite me a few sources and I will hunt them at at my University, cheers.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells True, any half decent system will reveal big differences. However, smaller, and even subtle, differences become huge with experience - once heard you can never go back and be completely happy.

I think this is a very important point, or relates to a very important point, that is often ignored. People frequently object to the notion that a difference between certain components or cables can be "huge." The problem is that there is no standard of measurement in this area; thus, one person's "huge" may be another person's "subtle." It's not like we can use inches or feet, or decibels, or gallons, or whatever. And there is no standard that we can really use based on common life experiences or observations, i.e., people generally will have a good idea of what you mean if you say you saw a really huge man the other day, because people generally know the average dude is around 6 feet tall or whatever. But we don't have a standard to describe what average sound or "good" sound sounds like in the audiophile sense -- at least one that eveybody can understand and apply across the board, given that we are dealing with, among other things, human hearing and how certain sounds are interpreted by the brain.

For example, one of the changes in my system reduced some sibilance I was experiencing. The difference would probably be subtle to some, in that some would not probably notice it unless I pointed it out, or unless they had a lot of time to listen and AB'ed back and forth quite a bit. An inexperienced listener (i.e., inexperienced with high end audio in general or inexperienced with my headphones or other gear) might not notice it at all. In other ways, the difference was subtle also. The same notes were there, with the same tones, and the music generally sounded the same. If you could somehow assign points on a 100-point system to all the elements that make up the music and the sound, perhaps you would say that it only made a 5 point change, or maybe even less.

And yet, I found that, whereas I used to suffer listening fatique after about an hour or so, I could now listen hour after hour. And the music was much more pleasant to listen to, as there was no longer sibilance to distract me when listening to some of my favorite CD's. To me, the effect of the reduction in sibilance was, indeed, a "huge" improvement.

Similarly, I was comparing two DAC's recently. One had a noticeably fuller bottom end than the other. Is that difference "subtle" or "huge"? I think I could argue it both ways.

So, until we come up with a uniform standard of measurement to describe changes in the sound of a system due to a component change, etc., I think it's very hard to conclude that a person is inaccurate when they say an audible difference is "huge," or that another is inaccurate if they say the same change is "subtle."

 

[regal]

I agree that a CDP, transport, or DAC can have a large impact on SQ, but you guys are losing credibility claiming such an impact from a piece of wire. Stick to the topic at hand.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal I agree that a CDP, transport, or DAC can have a large impact on SQ, but you guys are losing credibility claiming such an impact from a piece of wire. Stick to the topic at hand.

 

[rock\]

Excellent post PhilS.

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells: Art: No. You must know what you are listening to, and frequently be aware of it while listening for an extended period (3 days or more where the longer the better). The idea is to memory associate the component with its characteristics, particularly subtle ones.

Expectancy bias only works at first - then is supplanted with realistic perception - might take a day or two.



Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 Well, I dont think we will ever agree on this. I do not see that not knowing the make/model of the CDP would be a problem. as I see it you just need to know that they are different at the end you will prefer one or the other and then you can see which one you chose. As for Expectancy bias as a transient phenomenon It has been a long time since I studied Psychology (BA 1979, MSc 1991) so I cannot remember if I came across this, can you cite me a few sources and I will hunt them at at my University, cheers.

Art: I want to know what I am listening to for future reference. I know the sound of the SA5000 - strong and weak points - as well as the K701. I wouldn't be able to communicate to anyone about my evaluation of them if I had to refer to them as headphones A and B. It doesn't bias me at all to know which headphones they are - might initially, but not with extended experience.

Like I said, expectancy bias only works initially and is corrected with later experience.

If I am expecting my wife to walk into a room at her sister's house, and her sister instead walks in at that point, I might initially mistake the sister for my wife but after a matter of seconds I would soon correct my expectancy bias as reality supplants error in perception - even though the sister closely reselmbles the wife.

Now what if they were twins?

It might take more than just a few seconds to realize the sister was not the wife I expected to walk into the room.

Why?

Differences are much more subtle.

What is the key factor in perceptual discrimination with subtle differences?

Experience.

If I had only met my wife the day before I married her, and was expecting her to walk into the room on our wedding day (but after she had changed out of her wedding clothes), then it might be very difficult for me to tell if it was my wife or her twin sister who had walked into the room. Might not be able to tell the difference because of my limited experience in knowing my wife. Would be easy after years of marriage.

Need to AB audition in ABABABAB with a week of listening for each A and B to distinguish subtle differences. Also need to know what A is and what B is - if I lived with my new wife for a week at a time, alternated with living with her twin sister for a week at a time, and never knew who either was by name, it would hurt me in learning to distinguish who was which when one was presented to me to identify.

Perception is very tricky - subject to error. Eyewitness ID of people who committed a crime is notoriously bad - given 5 witnesses who witnessed a crime, they each will give different descriptions in some significant ways of the same suspect. However, if the suspect is well known (enough perceptual experience is established) to an eyewitness, then an accurate description can be obtained.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Art: I want to know what I am listening to for future reference. I know the sound of the SA5000 - strong and weak points - as well as the K701. I wouldn't be able to communicate to anyone about my evaluation of them if I had to refer to them as headphones A and B. It doesn't bias me at all to know which headphones they are - might initially, but not with extended experience.

I get the feeling that you are willfully misinterpreting my meaning, no matter. I will explain it differently. Let us say I am trying to choose between two well regarded CD players, I want to listen to them for extended periods, no argument. Okay, now so long as I always know when I am listening to A or B at any time then it does not actually matter which is A or which is B. At the end I will prefer A or B or neither. At that point the identity of the preferred source can be revealed. I dont see how this is contentious.

If you are comparing a known CD player with an unknown CD player, then surely you still do not need to know which is which as you must recognise the signature of your known player and be able to tell the difference effortlessly. At the end you will prefer one or another and then you can have its identity revealed and your judgment confirmed. If you are unable to tell which is which then they are too similar to be separated, again I see no problem here.

 

[ProzacMessiah]

It was good to get some feedback on the C2000ES. Soundboy, I'd actually checked that Steve Hoffman piece from another of your posts before buying.

If things weren't so tight now, I would have picked up the C2000ES instead. Still, it was good to see that he was impressed by the CE595 as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl It's really unfair to expect great sound from a $250 CD player. It just ain't gonna happen.

IMHO, I am getting great sound now, and if I ever find myself both willing and financially able to push further down the path, the TRL modification of the CE595 looks to be very highly regarded. Probably best that I don't have higher epectations at this juncture anyway.