[mmerrill99]

Well, first point to make is that your first report of this test led one to believe that they could tell the difference using long-term listening between two CDs that they had been given, one with 4% distortion on it. This is very different to what actually happened in the test, it would seem. So the normal procedure suggested for long term listening is by comparing two devices over a period of time, not listening to something

I did not imply that, that is your inference. I did not mention CDs till my second post after I went back to the paper. Initially I only mentioned the infamous box which I clearly stated **either** had distortion or not and when I mentioned the CD test I also said that the listeners got a CD not two CDs you misinterpreted this.

Harmonic distortion on both studies. 

Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing

- both tests were set-up by people who had a particular bias & this bias was easily seen in their experimental setup - both suffered from experimenter bias
- in the first test the training before the ABX test shows the experimenter bias
- in the other test, the use of one CD without an ability to compare to the second CD is again experimenter bias in evidence & nothing like how long term listening is conducted where different music is listened to over a long period & often back & forth A/B testing done

 

[nick_charles]

Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing

- both tests were set-up by people who had a particular bias & this bias was easily seen in their experimental setup - both suffered from experimenter bias
- in the first test the training before the ABX test shows the experimenter bias
- in the other test, the use of one CD without an ability to compare to the second CD is again experimenter bias in evidence & nothing like how long term listening is conducted where different music is listened to over a long period & often back & forth A/B testing done

 
I interpret this as listeners could take the box out of the circuit any time they liked.
 

 
So listeners  could use a known clean CD just not simultanesously

 

[mmerrill99]

Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing


- both tests were set-up by people who had a particular bias

I interpret this as listeners could take the box out of the circuit any time they liked.

As I said already - these participants were trained prior to ABX - not exactly an attempt to deal with just one variable, is it - why didn't they do the training before the long-term listening so they were trained what to listen for? Experimenter bias in evidence!!

So listeners  could use a known clean CD just not simultanesously

You mean they could find the same music, put it on another CD & do A/B comparisons? Do you know if any of them did this? If this was considered an option, why weren't the two CDs just given to them?

I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!

 

[nick_charles]

I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! - you do this all the time - you make up all sorts of speculations about motivation, bias, how different tests are predisposed to one result or another and so on. 

 

[mmerrill99]

I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! - you do this all the time - you make up all sorts of speculations about motivation, bias, how different tests are predisposed to one result or another and so on. 

You are welcome to call me on it anytime you feel I'm doing so - just as I am calling you on doing so now!

 

[watchnerd]

 

[nick_charles]

 

Fair comment ! - 4 hours of shoveling snow puts things in perspective !

 

[Baldr]

Here is a variation of something elsewhere posted but also relevant here:
 
Please allow me to take this opportunity to express my creed with respect to science and my chosen work. I should clarify to all concerned that my knowledge and expertise on cognitive neurology approaches zero. This means I am limited to my observations rather than other current experts in a field where said science is not completely known. In fact, the technology of very few, if any such sciences are completely known. My next statement is that I view this as a learning process until all experiments have been run.
 
I am an engineer first, scientist second – that means I build things, compare them with others, and then decide whether to build them or not as a production item. My chosen experiments for the most part, are the comparisons above. The comparisons are not just adjudged by myself; I also choose others for input and observation. Not to so would keep me too much in a vacuum. More on that later.
 
The science is I believe that all valid sonic differences should measurable. If the standard regimen of audio tests (frequency response, distortion, etc.) cannot measure a sonic difference, then either the sonic difference is invalid or a measurement to verify is not yet known. Simple. Either outcome is what it is. If it cannot eventually be measured, it must eventually be dismissed as para-audio.
 
Turning to DBTs. I have written elsewhere that I have been the subject of many of these tests, usually with my own gear and someone else's most of them 35 years or so ago. Such determinations were difficult, but I could detect my own gear at the time consistently 7-9 times out of ten. Granted, this was over tube-solid state gear boundaries and differing RIAA equalizations.  My point is that while subjecting myself to ABX tests, it is a form of listening that is completely different than listening for enjoyment. In an ABX test, I am in a much more alert and stressed (must perform) state of mind, listening to micro details of the passing parade of music in a competitive effort to differentiate them; when listening to music for pleasure, it is a much more macro and integrative view of the entire parade – the pressure is gone and I can focus on the music creator's intention or message. I cannot be arrogant enough to believe that all is scientifically known about ABX differential tests of audio gear to declare them the sole test of value judgement or value equality. If that makes me a “real science” deviant, then so be it. Now this applies to me and the equipment I build only.
 
I have also written elsewhere that I rely on narrative and observational information to form a hypothesis. This is precisely how detectives solve murder cases. If experiments verify, then a hypothesis becomes scientific. Therefore I freely admit I rely on observational and narrative constructs in my engineering. Not to do so places any scientific progress in peril. As I have written before, my wife's favorite album of all time is Supertramp's Crime of the Century, so much so that she wants parts of it played at her funeral. When I play it with a multibit Bifrost and Yggy, she repeatedly cries. When I play it to her on a variety of DS DACs, she does not. She has no dog in any fight, and does not give a Schiit what DAC she is listening to. There are many, other similar experiences I have witnessed. I am investigating them at the expense of a lot of my time. More may be revealed. I also freely admit that (although I do not know all of the reasons why – still working on it) that while practicing my hobby of listening to music in a relaxed manner I prefer multi-bit. That is for me only. You may judge me delusional, agree, or prefer DS. All that is none of my business.
 
I build DACs at Schiit from $100 to $2300. The more expensive ones may (or sometimes may not) be adjudged sonically superior by narratives and observations. Schiit does not, and never will, portray or warranty any of our DACs (or amps) to perform in any sonic or subjective way. We publish and are proud of all of our specs. Our website on the $100 DAC states that “This may be the only DAC you ever need” and that is very true.
 
None of this missive is intended to be an indictment of anyone else's views. You are entitled to them. Cherish them. In any event, the above is applicable to me. One of my philosophical influences is below:
 
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
BERTRAND RUSSELL, Mortals and Others
 
One more:
"Trust but verify"  RONALD REAGAN

 

[cjl]

  I build DACs at Schiit from $100 to $2300. The more expensive ones may (or sometimes may not) be adjudged sonically superior by narratives and observations. Schiit does not, and never will, portray or warranty any of our DACs (or amps) to perform in any sonic or subjective way. We publish and are proud of all of our specs. Our website on the $100 DAC states that “This may be the only DAC you ever need” and that is very true.

I have to say, I really do appreciate this fact about your DACs. It's refreshing to see a company take this position, though I do wish you'd publish a more detailed set of specs for data nerds and other engineers out there.

 

[watchnerd]

 
 
The science is I believe that all valid sonic differences should measurable. If the standard regimen of audio tests (frequency response, distortion, etc.) cannot measure a sonic difference, then either the sonic difference is invalid or a measurement to verify is not yet known. Simple. Either outcome is what it is. If it cannot eventually be measured, it must eventually be dismissed as para-audio.
 
 

 
Would you say the the differences between R2R & DS DACs (on the analog side), are currently measurable or are better categorized as not yet known?

 

[Sonic Defender]

Ultimately I think we can all agree that it is possible to build very musical DACs based on either architecture, the devil is in the details as they say. Personally, what I believe makes a significant difference, almost regardless of the chip topology is the quality of the analogue stage and the power supply. While not as critical as in amplification, a quality, stable power supply is important. As they say, it is the sum of the parts that gives us the whole. I am perfectly happy with a well done DS design, which I consider my NAD M51 to be an example of; however, my next DAC is quite likely to be the Yggy or Multibit Gungnir as my past experience with a Gungnir I owned for three years was very positive.

 

[watchnerd]

  Ultimately I think we can all agree that it is possible to build very musical DACs based on either architecture, the devil is in the details as they say. Personally, what I believe makes a significant difference, almost regardless of the chip topology is the quality of the analogue stage and the power supply. While not as critical as in amplification, a quality, stable power supply is important. As they say, it is the sum of the parts that gives us the whole. I am perfectly happy with a well done DS design, which I consider my NAD M51 to be an example of; however, my next DAC is quite likely to be the Yggy or Multibit Gungnir as my past experience with a Gungnir I owned for three years was very positive.

 
The M51 is a nice piece of equipment. Why replace it?

 

[Sonic Defender]

   
The M51 is a nice piece of equipment. Why replace it?

It is lovely, and I may not replace it, but sadly I always thirst to experience a new sound signature. I change my gear more to have a breadth of experience as opposed to solve a deficiency per say.

 

[OddE]

It is lovely, and I may not replace it, but sadly I always thirst to experience a new sound signature. I change my gear more to have a breadth of experience as opposed to solve a deficiency per say.

-This is a serious suggestion, though I do realise it will probably come off as rather snarky - have you considered adding a decent-quality equalizer to your setup?

Works a charm, be it as a sw plugin or a physical device. (A 3-band parametric eq transformed my headphone listening years ago - haven't looked back since.)

 

[mindbomb]

You actually bring up a good point with the EQ. The difference some people may be hearing is a roll off of the high frequencies in r2r due to different filtering. I wonder if you just lower 10khz -20khz by 2 db with eq, if that evokes the sound people associate with r2r dacs in delta sigma dacs.