Rising cost of "audiophile" equipment and importance of bias/blind testing
Aug 6, 2016 at 12:40 PM Post #691 of 1,376
Well that of course depends on the "if". And I guess it could be considered a "win" if it is important to you that no one else has a better system than you.

I'm not particularly interested in what other people have.
Just pleased if mid price gear is capable of superb performance.
I guess it would remove the continual itch for ever better equipment.
It would leave the audio industry in a peculiar position and would not necessarily be good for the hobby as a whole.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 12:49 PM Post #692 of 1,376
I'm not particularly interested in what other people have.
Just pleased if mid price gear is capable of superb performance.
I guess it would remove the continual itch for ever better equipment.
It would leave the audio industry in a peculiar position and would not necessarily be good for the hobby as a whole.

In my opinion, mid price or even low price gear can offer superb performance. Example: my pair of $5 Venture Electronics Monk earbuds powered by my Samsung Note 4.
 
Whether big buck gear is better, and if so, by how much, is certainly open to debate - which will go on forever.
 
Also, in my opinion, the constant urge to upgrade has less to do with gear and more to do with personality issues. 
 
The audio industry has dealt with these issues at least from the early beginning of "high-end" audio back in the 60s. So far there isn't much evidence they have much to worry about.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 1:35 PM Post #693 of 1,376
Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,

As said before, blind tests don't convince anybody these days--among other reasons stated above I'd like to add, that to properly conduct a blind test in a way that removes confounding telltales from the equation, often requires control methodologies that "the other side" will not accept. For example, if the DACs have a timing as well as volume difference, then fast switching between them would not work unless you run the signals through something like VSTHost with a delay plugin on one side, which would immediately make the blood boil in audio purists
basshead.gif


I think we need a more convincing demonstration that more people can accept. E.g. we could have a demo black-box system driving a HD800, that sounds "smoother", "more detailed yet less fatiguiing", etc. than any source/DAC/amp system the audiophile cares to throw at it. Then we open the black box to show a bog-standard smartphone running a custom HD800 correction profile on Viper4Android or something.
biggrin.gif

 
 
Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too
smily_headphones1.gif


For a little while, going back at least a few months now I guess, I've been talking to another member here (@landroni) about building a proper tool to more easily/reliably facilitate blind and ABX testing for source components.  While there are certainly tools that enable such things today, they are generally software-side solutions, which aren't very useful if the source you want to compare isn't a computer-based player and, in the case of the most readily available, it's a Windows-centric thing.
 
It also typically forces you to have USB somewhere in the audio chain as most computers don't have any other way to talk to a DAC.
 
That tool does a few of things.
 
First it's a distribution point ... feed it a digital input and it'll give you two outputs of the same signal, allowing you to connect to two digital devices at once and have them playing in synchronization form the source.  It allows you to adjust timing between delivery to those two sources to permit overcoming any latency from internal buffering/re-clocking schemes as needed.  You don't have to use this stage ... you can just use the analog inputs (see next point) instead if you prefer.
 
Second, it takes two stereo analog inputs, provides a push-button way to automatically level-match them to within 0.1 dB (quite a lot better than you'll manage by ear and beyond the realistic capability of many SPL meters), and then provides a single, switched, output to an amplifier.
 
Third, it provides for a couple of comparison modes, with a simple control to allow the user to indicate when they hear a difference.
 
One mode simply repeats a selectable passage of music ... you mark a start and end point, which it stores in an internal buffer, and then it'll repeatedly play that while switching sources.  The other simply passes through whatever is coming from the source and switches sources randomly there.  This allow you see if differences are detectable in-stream or between repeated passages.  Then there's an option to mute between switches or make the changeover seamless*.
 
It logs what source playing when, and records when the user indicates they detect a difference, and then gives you the data so you can analyze it from there.
 
Switching is driven by a proper hardware random number generator rather than a pseudo-random software one (e.g. Mersenne Twister), and within certain constraints you can substitute a different device there (which comes from me not having settled on which RNG I wanted to use when I first got things running).
 
*There's a bit more work to do before it's finished, in particular the seamless switching needs tweaking, but once it's done there's a good chance I'll throw the thing up on some crowd-funding site and then have as many built as there is concrete interest in.  And then I may open-source the design and code, depending on how much work it ultimately takes to get it from being a tool for me vs. something others can easily use.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 3:29 PM Post #694 of 1,376
Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too :)


What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
Lol!
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 4:01 PM Post #696 of 1,376
What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
Lol!



I seriously doubt you could get away with this.


I don't think that's going to work either. LOL

The Modi's measured levels of distortion are arguably inaudible. With a mini dsp, you could then apply some slight EQ to the DAC analog output, ever so slight, just to skew it a little. Plus, people would freak out not only knowing you used the Modi, but then you used the ADC and DAC in the mini dsp on the analog signal. (hehe)
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 4:05 PM Post #697 of 1,376
What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
Lol!


I have an old 8 dollar Chinese mp3 from 10 years ago.

It's bad. You won't be able to get away with it. However, music isn't unbearable or anything. I can still enjoy it. It's just not that good.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 4:11 PM Post #698 of 1,376
The ones I listened to (got some also for cheap presents) sound transparent with higher impedance headphones - only when switching songs you hear the CPU working - though $5 flac mp3 players from China sound completely transparent. No CPU. Even with 16 ohm phones.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM Post #700 of 1,376
  I seriously doubt you could get away with this.

 
Nope, depending on the source material, you really couldn't. 128k layer 3 will be obviously running out of bitrate, and the coding artifacts fairly audible to an interested listener, especially with material containing complex, layered content. Using 320k layer 3, or at a pinch 256k AAC (with a reasonable encoder) will past most sniff tests, though.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 6:55 PM Post #701 of 1,376
I respect my LCD4's the most and are technically superior to everything I've owned and most things I've heard.. But I get in moods where I like my SR80e more and pretty much always enjoy the EL-8 open back more.

 
 

This really surprises me.
I thought one thing that everyone agreed on in this forum (objective and subjective sides) was that headphones make the most / a big difference.
I was totally with you guys when we were talking about dacs and amps making not much difference, but some posts I read on here, I think I can see the reason that subjectivists think objectivists are just crazy and mad at the world.
 
This one as well...
 
  In my opinion, mid price or even low price gear can offer superb performance. Example: my pair of $5 Venture Electronics Monk earbuds powered by my Samsung Note 4.

 
Aug 6, 2016 at 6:57 PM Post #702 of 1,376
Also, meanwhile, all the lurkers not normally part of this forum are writing down the user names of people who want to put a modi/smartphone in a yggy chassis so they know to be very aware of any gear they bring to a meet...
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 7:03 PM Post #703 of 1,376
  This really surprises me.
I thought one thing that everyone agreed on in this forum (objective and subjective sides) was that headphones make the most / a big difference.
I was totally with you guys when we were talking about dacs and amps making not much difference, but some posts I read on here, I think I can see the reason that subjectivists think objectivists are just crazy and mad at the world.
 
This one as well...
 

I didn't say the Monk sounded as good as my HD800S or even nearly as good. I try to avoid subjective comparisons on this thread.
 
I agree that headphone choice is probably the most important. 
 
And just to be clear, I personally don't believe that DACs and amps don't make much difference, but I don't want to make any claims on this thread I can't substantiate by valid DBTs.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 7:23 PM Post #704 of 1,376
 
Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,

As said before, blind tests don't convince anybody these days--among other reasons stated above I'd like to add, that to properly conduct a blind test in a way that removes confounding telltales from the equation, often requires control methodologies that "the other side" will not accept. For example, if the DACs have a timing as well as volume difference, then fast switching between them would not work unless you run the signals through something like VSTHost with a delay plugin on one side, which would immediately make the blood boil in audio purists
basshead.gif


I think we need a more convincing demonstration that more people can accept. E.g. we could have a demo black-box system driving a HD800, that sounds "smoother", "more detailed yet less fatiguiing", etc. than any source/DAC/amp system the audiophile cares to throw at it. Then we open the black box to show a bog-standard smartphone running a custom HD800 correction profile on Viper4Android or something.
biggrin.gif

 
 
Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too
smily_headphones1.gif


For a little while, going back at least a few months now I guess, I've been talking to another member here (@landroni) about building a proper tool to more easily/reliably facilitate blind and ABX testing for source components.  While there are certainly tools that enable such things today, they are generally software-side solutions, which aren't very useful if the source you want to compare isn't a computer-based player and, in the case of the most readily available, it's a Windows-centric thing.
 
It also typically forces you to have USB somewhere in the audio chain as most computers don't have any other way to talk to a DAC.
 
That tool does a few of things.
 
First it's a distribution point ... feed it a digital input and it'll give you two outputs of the same signal, allowing you to connect to two digital devices at once and have them playing in synchronization form the source.  It allows you to adjust timing between delivery to those two sources to permit overcoming any latency from internal buffering/re-clocking schemes as needed.  You don't have to use this stage ... you can just use the analog inputs (see next point) instead if you prefer.
 
Second, it takes two stereo analog inputs, provides a push-button way to automatically level-match them to within 0.1 dB (quite a lot better than you'll manage by ear and beyond the realistic capability of many SPL meters), and then provides a single, switched, output to an amplifier.
 
Third, it provides for a couple of comparison modes, with a simple control to allow the user to indicate when they hear a difference.
 
One mode simply repeats a selectable passage of music ... you mark a start and end point, which it stores in an internal buffer, and then it'll repeatedly play that while switching sources.  The other simply passes through whatever is coming from the source and switches sources randomly there.  This allow you see if differences are detectable in-stream or between repeated passages.  Then there's an option to mute between switches or make the changeover seamless*.
 
It logs what source playing when, and records when the user indicates they detect a difference, and then gives you the data so you can analyze it from there.
 
Switching is driven by a proper hardware random number generator rather than a pseudo-random software one (e.g. Mersenne Twister), and within certain constraints you can substitute a different device there (which comes from me not having settled on which RNG I wanted to use when I first got things running).
 
*There's a bit more work to do before it's finished, in particular the seamless switching needs tweaking, but once it's done there's a good chance I'll throw the thing up on some crowd-funding site and then have as many built as there is concrete interest in.  And then I may open-source the design and code, depending on how much work it ultimately takes to get it from being a tool for me vs. something others can easily use.

I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is loosely supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.
 
The paper can be checked out here: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160806/18296.pdf
 
I've put some clippings below:
 

What the forest plot shows is that studies with training appear to show a greater ability to discern high definition content, and overall there appears to be a a small ability to discern high definition content. The paper is interesting and not without limitations, so take with a grain of salt and read for yourself. Interesting, among the studies in the training subgroup the longer stimuli and longer intervals between stimuli appeared to correlate with greater ability to discern content.
 
 
 
The results should be taken in a somewhat guarded manner, as the subgroups have small sample sizes. The study also assesses most studies as having high risk of bias. It just isn't the case that audio studies involving people are generally well conducted. There is also lots of heterogeneity in the study methods of studies included in the meta-analysis, but I think the preparation work to make code the studies in a binary fashion, discern or not discern, was done well.
 
Anyway, go check out the study. It is well worth a read.
 
Aug 6, 2016 at 7:30 PM Post #705 of 1,376
I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period.


If the goal is scientific research, sure. I could see your argument.

If the goal of Torq's device is for audio enthusiasts to do their own testing, just offer both. If the listener can't tell with fast switching, and the listener can't tell taking their time listening, then hopefully it would convince them that it's not worth spending money on the more expensive DAC :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top