[JxK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif We are talking about cables right? Never brought medicine in this discussion? Two totally different things. To me The ABX / DBX or a waste of time because it gets the way of listening to music. It creates a disbelief that you can't improve something without this to make sure. How many people use this method to purchase a piece of audio equipment really?

Just think of it as a fail safe to make sure that you bought a working product. After all, why would you ever want to spend money on something that does nothing to improve your system? Wouldn't you rather spend money on something that really does make it work better? To me, purchasing improvements that are proven to improve sound quality would only bring you closer to your music.

To be honest, that's something I never understood about people who buy "audiophile" cables but refuse to ABX them to see how much they help. We all want to improve our systems, but have limited funds to do so. So then why in the world would an "audiophile" not perform such a test? Especially when it would enable them to save money with which to better their systems.

 

[BIG POPPA]

It is OK not to understand cables. This gives the opportunity to go a learn a little about them like going to Head-fi meets, demonstrations at the local audio shop, and contacting manufacturers or retailers. Done all of these things. Maybe do a little DIY? If you have any more questions you can PM me. Would be glad to help.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest, that's something I never understood about people who buy "audiophile" cables but refuse to ABX them to see how much they help. We all want to improve our systems, but have limited funds to do so. So then why in the world would an "audiophile" not perform such a test?

I don't buy audiophile cables and such, but I can offer the following general line of reasoning, since this applies to audio generally: the process of listening to music and the process of conscious comparison and discrimination of sounds are two reasonably different mental processes. Note that it isn't the "blind" aspect, but the conscious comparison and discrimination aspect that is the important difference here. It's well established that conscious perception is very limited.

So the question really is: "has it been established that short-term conscious comparison and discrimination techniques accurately indicate all processes, conscious and subconscious, known to affect human beings during music listening?"

The answer, as far as I'm aware, is "no".

Again, passive music listening can be done perfectly fine with eyes closed, so blind testing is perfectly valid. But conscious comparison and discrimination techniques, such as ABX, are an entirely different question. Whether ABX is an appropriate test depends on the specific circumstances of the experiment and the hypothesis being tested.

Also note that where DBT is used in medical trials, they typically don't involve conscious comparison and discrimination, and in the cases where they do, the conscious comparison task is something which is expected to be consciously discriminable, i.e., ratings of pain, etc.

 

[XXII]

No offense but this is a terrible suggestion from a scientific point of view. A scientist should always be questioning his premise.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is OK not to understand cables.

Yup it is, let's just leave it at that.

 

[Pio2001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would like to propose a ban on posts that do not believe in DBT from the science forum.

I agree.

More precisely, to ban posts that tell just that : that blind listening tests are not valid, or can't be used to test audition. This is plain wrong.

But posts questionning a given blind test (about level matching, for example), or conclusions coming from a given blind test, should be ok.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Yes. Exactly.

It would be good to elaborate the original post and add your second comment.

 

[Chef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't buy audiophile cables and such, but I can offer the following general line of reasoning, since this applies to audio generally: the process of listening to music and the process of conscious comparison and discrimination of sounds are two reasonably different mental processes. Note that it isn't the "blind" aspect, but the conscious comparison and discrimination aspect that is the important difference here. It's well established that conscious perception is very limited. So the question really is: "has it been established that short-term conscious comparison and discrimination techniques accurately indicate all processes, conscious and subconscious, known to affect human beings during music listening?" The answer, as far as I'm aware, is "no". Again, passive music listening can be done perfectly fine with eyes closed, so blind testing is perfectly valid. But conscious comparison and discrimination techniques, such as ABX, are an entirely different question. Whether ABX is an appropriate test depends on the specific circumstances of the experiment and the hypothesis being tested. Also note that where DBT is used in medical trials, they typically don't involve conscious comparison and discrimination, and in the cases where they do, the conscious comparison task is something which is expected to be consciously discriminable, i.e., ratings of pain, etc.

If you have no reason to believe something, why do you believe it? I don't understand your reasoning. Yes, everyone knows ABX isn't perfect, but when a result comes positive, it's pretty damn definitive, in so far as it tells you there's a difference. What you seem to be preaching is not doing any kind of testing at all, but still spending money... That doesn't make sense. There has to be some reason to believe you're gaining something, or else you are just gambling.

Quote:

It's well established that conscious perception is very limited.

When you say things like this, especially, I feel inclined not to believe you. This is like Freudian-age psychology... pick up something written in the last decade. Especially when it comes to music, you are making weird and unprovable arguments. Maybe flac files unhearable bytes are massaging our brain waves in ways we can't understand. But that's just as likely as the unhearable bytes fatiguing the brain. You have to actually be able to prove it to say things like this. It would take a pretty intensive study, but it wouldn't be impossible. You could have people listen to a version of the track, and then another group listen to the other, and have everyone write a test and see if there is a trend in their mental capacities (assuming people with a fatigued brain should do more poorly). But what you can't do is just say 'oh I felt more tired after listening to this. I haven't documented anything or controlled any variables, but now I'm going to make financial decisions based on it! That's just gambling.

Basically words are just words... Something should be testable, repeatable, and reliable if it's going to be posted in this forum, or at least it should be attempting to see if something has those qualities. Otherwise it really is just pointless babble.

Someone asks "Do you honestly think about tests when you buy audio equipment?" and I can honestly say I don't know why you wouldn't unless you were being cheap. That's like asking me if I look at the tests a car has been through or not before I purchase it. Of course I do, it costs a lot of money and it affects what brands succeed in the industry. I don't want to support pseudo-science brands, nor do I want to spend my money in the wrong places. I would have choice words for people who don't do this, the nicest one being "fool."

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef /img/forum/go_quote.gif Something should be testable, repeatable, and reliable if it's going to be posted in this forum, or at least it should be attempting to see if something has those qualities. Otherwise it really is just pointless babble.

*Thumbs up* Chef, very nice post.

 

[BIG POPPA]

Nice post Chef. Got a question. Let say I was going to by a CD player at the local audio store. They had Rega, Marantz, and Rotel. To pick a CD player would I use an ABX/DBX to find out which one to buy? What would be the best way to check these out?

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif So the question really is: "has it been established that short-term conscious comparison and discrimination techniques accurately indicate all processes, conscious and subconscious, known to affect human beings during music listening?"

Cable makers and proponents make very explicit claims about the sensory effects of cables. Here is an example from a website: "this High Purity multi-strand Silver Alloy Mini - Stereo RCA interconnect offers unmatched resolution, dynamics and musicality"

And proponents make claims about cable effects- conscious, unconscious and beyond- that they themselves say also allow them to differentiate between high and low quality cables.
Quote:

Originally Posted by immtbiker /img/forum/go_quote.gif I immediately changed the cable and dock from ALO and the world became one again. I'm not saying that it takes a $2000 VD cable to make a difference, but as soon as I out on the ALO Jena cable and dock, the world became one again.

All these claims can be tested directly in a choice test.

More generally, the underlying source of a differential effect is not at issue in a DBT and hypothesis test. For example, lithium has significant effects on reducing mania, even though the discovery was an accident and the mechanisms are not yet understood.

 

[Chef]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice post Chef. Got a question. Let say I was going to by a CD player at the local audio store. They had Rega, Marantz, and Rotel. To pick a CD player would I use an ABX/DBX to find out which one to buy? What would be the best way to check these out?

What I would do is first product research online. I'd look for people who might have already done the test, ask questions to reliable people, and if I couldn't find anyone with evidence that any of those CD players were bad, I would choose them based on criteria such as cost, aesthetic appeal, ease of use, and personal market philosophies (I like buying brands that aren't super popular, because I think competition is important for the future of the market).

The main point being if I couldn't find a legitimate reason to believe one sounded better than the other, I would assume they sounded equally good. Which believe it or not is pretty true of the modern market. As long as you are getting something made of good materials (not some substandard as cheap as possible thing), you are getting maximum quality. This usually means that the decision comes down to build quality... How many reviewers are telling me this thing broke down on them or started skipping or shorting out or whatever. That to me is what an intelligent consumer should concern him or herself with. I spent a very long time checking out different PMPs before I finally settled on one, and I did look for evidence that some sounded better than other's especially given prevalent rumours that Cowon was somehow high and above everyone else in terms of sound quality. I ended up not finding any reason to believe this, and instead chose my player based on codec support and availability.

 

[BIG POPPA]

Basically it came down to 2 things. Relaxed sound of the Arcam and the IEC input or the more upfront sound of the Marantz and the C7 port. I chose the Arcam. The Arcam only plays Cds and the Marantz plays everything else. Very tough decision and chose on sound. Very happy with it and not ready to upgrade any time soon. Do a lot of homework on every piece of gear.
It is disheartening to see people to ask all their questions online and to make all their decisions by them without making an effort to listen to gear for themselves. Hence the term "thread ninja".

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...true of the modern market. As long as you are getting something made of good materials (not some substandard as cheap as possible thing), you are getting maximum quality. This usually means that the decision comes down to build quality...

I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA Basically it came down to 2 things. Relaxed sound of the Arcam and the IEC input or the more upfront sound of the Marantz and the C7 port. I chose the Arcam. The Arcam only plays Cds and the Marantz plays everything else. Very tough decision and chose on sound. Very happy with it and not ready to upgrade any time soon. Do a lot of homework on every piece of gear. It is disheartening to see people to ask all their questions online and to make all their decisions by them without making an effort to listen to gear for themselves. Hence the term "thread ninja".

Here is a link where they did a test proving that expensive CD players really don't sound any better. In point of fact, sometimes such boutique products may even sound worse. Chef is right when he says that with almost all modern CD players, assuming there is nothing broken, there will be no audible difference. So just buy from a quality manufacturer in order to get a well built product. Note: off topic, but you can also assume that the same will apply to amplifiers as well, tube amps excluded.
What really matters in CD player performance.

 

[BIG POPPA]

I spent 300 bucks out the door.