[Magick Man]

I used to believe they sounded different, until I did a proper DBT.  Now I don't believe they sound different unless one or both is wrong.

Funny how people change . . .

Bias can cut both ways. Going into an ABX expecting everything to sound the same is just as bad as expecting every piece of gear to sound different.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Bias can cut both ways. Going into an ABX expecting everything to sound the same is just as bad as expecting every piece of gear to sound different.

 
Correct, which is why those that don't believe in a difference (the null hypothesis) can't prove that something doesn't make a difference.  It also lands them in the wonderful outcast territory in HiFi where they're accused of tin ears and the like.
 
This is why the responsibility of ABX/DBT tends to fall on those that believe they may hear a difference.  If they do, under the correct circumstances, they have expanded our understanding past where it was.  Purrin for example may very well hear a difference in DACs, and if he passes an agreed upon test with the DACs meeting all the necessary criteria you can believe the sound science board is going to explode with wanting to do further research and figure out what this unknown variable is and how to measure it and gauge it.  We seem to dislike change, but it's that the standards for change to what some would consider absurdly high.
 
Effectively though, this comes down to being unable to disprove the existence of something.  There's no way to do that, but that means it's also the null hypothesis.  To change it, someone must rather prove the existence to change that base level understanding.  This is why science and religion conflict for example.
 
Of course, I'm pretty sure I'm beating a dead horse.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

 
This response may have sounded rude, but this whole "both outlooks are equivalent" nonsense is rather tired and trite.  It isn't when going by the standards of understanding we have today.  The only excuse is this understanding is insufficient, but until we have evidence of that via the scientific method it's not merely going to be accepted and agreed upon.  Anyone can point at former research and use it as a source, they don't even need to inherently understand the intricacies of the research.  Those trying to disprove or expand upon it inherently do, and any findings they have are subject to tremendous amounts of scrutiny.

 
It's really pointless to have a discussion with people who see things in such ridiculous black and white terms. 

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

It just makes me wonder "why the hell do we have these threads up anyways" . We've had so many of these BS threads that go nowhere. We might as well have some sort of directory for the noobies to come to a consolidated thread instead of a million and one threads being created...

 
 

 

 
I started saying something along those lines well back in this thread, but for some reason we insist on feeding trolls - hence this thread could well overtake the Purple Grado thread for sheer volume, 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

False.  Much of the research regarding meaningful data as we understand it has already been done.  You and various subjectivists have made claims about possible measurements that have yet to be made.  It's up to you to prove these using the scientific method.  Everything that's been claimed by the objectivists are measurable and repeatable.  It's up to you to disprove the null hypothesis, that's how science works.

 
Except for data on the subjective factor. Even medical studies measuring the efficacy of painkillers rely on subjective scoring however flawed it is. What you have suggested is equivalent to measuring the chemical concentration half-life in the blood steam on Aspirin rather than directly asking the patients how they feel when they take it.
 
Basically only everything which has been measurable has been measurable and repeatable by the "objectivists." And "everything" consists of only the O2, some AMB amp, DAC1, and ODAC, with one test subject. The "claims" have not been sufficiently measured or tabulated with enough data points or test subjects.
 
And finally, remember that a null hypothesis, i.e. "amps that measure well (good enough) sound the same" is still a hypothesis. It is not truth, as many "objectivists" boldly advertise and proclaim it to be. It is not even a working theory. And it certainly does not warrant some kid going off on people with such venom: "audiophoolery cool-aid drinking forum members."

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
It's really pointless to have a discussion with people who see things in such ridiculous black and white terms.  HF is such a fail.  Good thing for us you're cornered off in this irrelevant corner of the world and have no real impact on our lives. 

 
Most of science is black and white, much like math.
 
Nice try on the ninja edit, but no, I still caught the personal attack.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

 
I started saying something along those lines well back in this thread, but for some reason we insist on feeding trolls - hence this thread could well overtake the Purple Grado thread for sheer volume, 

Let me guess the "Purple" model is in celebration of the trolls setting a Guinness world record on headfi .

 

[Citan]

Quote:

 
I think you would learn a lot if you tried building your own amplifier starting from simple designs. Nothing beats hands on experience. Even building some very simple amplifiers and seeing how changes in design and parts affect the sound of the amplifier - in sounding like anything or nothing. Nothing will preclude you from doing any blind testing either.
 
Here is a great resource for you to get started and it shouldn't cost you that much money: http://tangentsoft.net/audio/
 
You will realize that even seemingly innocuous things such as putting capacitors in the signal path (to block DC) or using opamps with different specs affects the sound. You will realize the the design O2 is really not that special. The location of the volume pot is interesting, but that's about it, and even then, it's got some downsides, and it's already been done before. A well designed semi-portable CMOY with a good power supply circuit could actually be a better amp (more transparent) than the O2 for easier to drive headphones.
 
Until then, in the absence of any meaningful data, test results, or personal experience, you just have a hypothesis no better than any of the more seemingly outlandish subjective claims. Sorry, but that's just how the scientific method works. Observe, measure, postulate, attempt to predict / correlate, observe, measure, measure more, measure more, gain confidence -or- throw out BS, adjust, measure, observe, measure more, etc.

With a science background I would have thought you would have developed a greater appreciation for how knowledgeable people are within in their particular discipline and how it is nearly impossible to be an "expert" outside of one or two domains of knowledge.  There is absolutely no need for me to start from scratch or build a diy project in order to have confidence in electromagnetism/signal theory/circuit mechanics.  There are people who devote/d their entire lives to this sort of thing, if I have questions, I ask them.  I have no idea how you can claim that "in the absence of any meaningful data, test results, or personal experience, you just have a hypothesis no better than the more seemingly outlandish subjective claims."  There is plenty of meaningful data, test results, authoritative personal experiences, and I have no "hypothesis," people figured this stuff out long ago and I will hang my hat on the knowledge of competent electrical engineers/scientists.  These are the types of folks who back the so called objectivists stance, while the only ones who support the subjectivist side are hobbyist tinkers on head-fi.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

 
Most of science is black and white, much like math.
 
Nice try on the ninja edit, but no, I still caught the personal attack.

 
No it's certainly not.  A real scientist doesn't assert conclusions, they ask questions.  A real scientist then looks at all data with an open mind and follows the truth wherever it leads them. 
 
You have already made a conclusion and will find facts to support that conclusion.  Which is not science, it's religion.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
Except for data on the subjective factor. Even medical studies measuring the efficacy of painkillers rely on subjective scoring however flawed it is. What you have suggested is equivalent to measuring the chemical concentration half-life in the blood steam on Aspirin rather than directly asking the patients how they feel when they take it.
 
Basically only everything which has been measurable has been measurable and repeatable by the "objectivists." And "everything" consists of only the O2, some AMB amp, DAC1, and ODAC, with one test subject.

 
Many would love more evidence of the subjective factor, which is why I highly encourage those capable of taking tests that rely on it to do so.  The reason we refer to 1% THD as where audibility kicks in is because that's where former tests found it to be based on subjects.  Much of our objective understanding for transparency already includes a subjective basis when it comes to psychoacoustics.  However, it doesn't mean we must accept every subjective claim without any form of control and testing.  You may or may not hear it, but it's up to you to help prove you do.  Saying "guys, just believe me" isn't bringing in the scientific method.  Attaching measurements while saying it isn't doing it either.  Finding measurements while proving the audibility is, or even just proving the audibility, helps a lot.  Of course, we want this done with controlled methodology and third party testing - this is where testing becomes an even larger pain unfortunately - but it's considered necessary for quite a few to take claims seriously.
 
For example, there's been tests for audibility between amplifiers before.  Same with DACs, and various other technologies.  Effectively, the argument at this point in time is the subjects were unable to hear a difference for whatever reason and as such people that believe they can today are better subjects.  My answer to them is merely to go for it, but don't expect us to hang on to every word and whim till you do with proper controls, etc.
 
PS:  NwAvGuy isn't the only one that measured the Mini^3 and O2.  Even using RMAA, when the dummy load was actually built correctly, I was able to measure the Mini^3 crosstalk issues within 2dB of what NwAvGuy showed.  I measured the O2 within 1dB of what he showed.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

These are the types of folks who back the so called objectivists stance, while the only ones who support the subjectivist side are hobbyist tinkers on head-fi.

 
I dream of being called a 'hobbyist tinkerer', but 'tinker' ? Not so much. 

 

[mikeaj]

Backing away a bit from the personal attacks...
 
Quote:

To say that a specific set of measurements (for example: FR, THD at 1kHz at a some reference level, 19/20kHz IM, noise floor, and a sprinkling of a few others) for two pieces of equipment, if they are near perfect or below the threshold of human audibility, will indicate that said two pieces of equipment sound the same, may not necessarily be true. This is because these types of measurements are too narrow in scope. Another argument is that these types of measurements are based on steady state signals, but that can be an entirely another topic.

 
"may not necessarily be true" -> I can agree with that, sure.
 
But I ask you this:  have you ever seen an amp or DAC do spectacularly in FR, THD (at a few different test levels and frequencies scattered around), IMD (various tests), etc.—thus seemingly indicating extremely low linear distortion and nonlinear distortion—and also do significantly worse with any other kind of audio signal you run through it?
 
Does the "not necessarily be true" part actually exist in practice?  How often?  By how much?  e.g. THD+N at -100 dB, -98 dB for another test...then suddenly craps its pants with -63 dB in some IMD test of your choosing, or even with real music.
 
 
 
 

No it's certainly not.  A real scientist doesn't assert conclusions, they ask questions.  A real scientist then looks at all data with an open mind and follows the truth wherever it leads them. 
 
You have already made a conclusion and will find facts to support that conclusion.  Which is not science, it's religion.

 
As a general statement, isn't part of "real science" evaluating claims, especially given the context of previous research?  Sometimes you've just got to throw out some claims, bad data, whatever else, to find the relevant information—the open mind you call for helps you sift through these things.  That's what happens in peer review.  Also important is to ask the right questions, which I believe some people are doing (and some are not); IME some are guilty on both sides, if you want to call it that.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 
No it's certainly not.  A real scientist doesn't assert conclusions, they ask questions.  A real scientist then looks at all data with an open mind and follows the truth wherever it leads them. 

 
Yes, and we have the conclusions they've found.  We now have those that ignore those conclusions saying they're wrong or wanting to expand on them, which is okay, that too is part of the scientific method.  Some people like running proofs all day long to find a problem with a formula or algorithm, it's still accepted as a fact till they do though within the respective community.
 
 

 
You have already made a conclusion and will find facts to support that conclusion.  Which is not science, it's religion.

 
False.  We can perform the same tests and get the same conclusion, that's the point of peer review.  When someone runs a similar test and gets a different result, and is able to repeat it, then we revisit the hypothesis and try to explain what happened.
 
Much of science builds on past conclusions, are those doing so doing it out of religion as you claim?  I would argue no due to the former.

 

[Radio_head]

Quote:

 
I dream of being called a 'hobbyist tinkerer', but 'tinker' ? Not so much. 

Some in this thread seem more Hobbesian than hobbyist.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

My answer to them is merely to go for it, but don't expect us to hang on to every word and whim till you do with proper controls, etc.

 
That's fine and I have no problem with that. You don't have to hang on every word. But why do the likes of the OP and Citan have to come in and piss on everyone who don't agree with them?
 
If 80% of the people on this forum are such fools, maybe this is not the place for them to be.