Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up
Aug 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM Post #23,267 of 82,870

RCBinTN

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Posts
5,090
Likes
9,371
Location
Nashville, TN
It seems like the 'skill' (methodology applied and employed) of observing, is overlooked as the essential requirement for gathering results from which to evaluate the DUT (device under test).
So the short one time experience and subsequent summation of the nature of a piece of gear is ofttimes rather misleading, and is usually rather shallow.

And as has been noted, the only real way to tell the true nature of a new piece of gear is over the long term and under differing conditions.

There are of course exceptions, especially when the 'new' gear is crap, broken, or operates intermittently.

And of course observing the operation and behavior, over time, is required in order to make comprehensive qualitative judgements based upon the subjective value of the observed traits.
IOW it takes time, experience and exposure to become familiar 'enough', with a new piece of gear in order to fully assess its nature, which in turn means it takes repeated observation(s).

Pseudo-science is the result of taking short cuts, in any number of a variety of ways of the empirical method, and making poor or incomplete observations is a quick and dirty short cut in and of itself.
It is also one of, if not the, 'easiest' way to 'contaminate' an experiment.

JJ
In my experience, it's usually Sales that pushes short-cuts of the validation process. Sometimes it leads to quicker profits, if you're lucky. Sometimes it leads to product failure and customer/financial loss. Be careful.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 7:52 PM Post #23,268 of 82,870

slefty

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Posts
142
Likes
321
Location
SoCal
Do you have a link to the content? I'm very interested. Thank you -

No, that was back in the mid 1970s. I'd like to think other schools must have courses similar to that, though from how few younger people with technical backgrounds seem to understand the nature of experience and education in developing proper observational skills, maybe schools these days don't.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM Post #23,269 of 82,870

Pietro Cozzi Tinin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Posts
4,051
Likes
9,587
Location
Delft, The Netherlands
In the program I went through in college (a science based, not engineering based program) we had a required course specifically for "Scientific Observational Skills". a full semester 4 credit course to learn and understand trained, scientific, objective observational skills. Surprisingly, no "double blind tests" were used. One of the most valuable courses I took, and I used , developed and honed those skills in my profession over the next 30+ years.
Double blind tests are not Scientific Observational Skills.
They are Scientific Statistic Correlation Exercises.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 7:55 PM Post #23,271 of 82,870

Pietro Cozzi Tinin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Posts
4,051
Likes
9,587
Location
Delft, The Netherlands
No, that was back in the mid 1970s. I'd like to think other schools must have courses similar to that, though from how few younger people with technical backgrounds seem to understand the nature of experience and education in developing proper observational skills, maybe schools these days don't.
An engineer doesn't need that bad.
He can simply measure end quantify.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 7:58 PM Post #23,272 of 82,870

Pietro Cozzi Tinin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Posts
4,051
Likes
9,587
Location
Delft, The Netherlands
When used correctly, yes. Done many over the years. Usually to test the observers and to weed out those who couldn't detect the types of differences we needed to detect.
That's odd. If the observers already knew what to detect (seeing them or not) you already closed the door on dubble blind testing
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 8:06 PM Post #23,273 of 82,870

Pandahead

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
632
Likes
1,148
Location
Florida
When used correctly, yes. Done many over the years. Usually to test the observers and to weed out those who couldn't detect the types of differences we needed to detect.
Maybe Mike was observing the posting on these threads. In case you didn't catch it he said yesterday that he is going to make a version of the tone arm and lifter that can be mounted on other tables. Somewhere around Bifrost price if I recall, don't quote me, it's something like that.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 8:07 PM Post #23,274 of 82,870

slefty

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Posts
142
Likes
321
Location
SoCal
That's odd. If the observers already knew what to detect (seeing them or not) you already closed the door on dubble blind testing
There you go, you would have failed the test right there. Making assumptions without understanding the conditions. The observers didn't know what to detect, I did, since I generated the samples. Each round had diminishing differences so only the most keen observers would be able to detect if a difference even existed. We expected close to a 90 % failure rate, with the result being that we found the 10% who could be trained to do the job.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 8:11 PM Post #23,275 of 82,870

Pietro Cozzi Tinin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Posts
4,051
Likes
9,587
Location
Delft, The Netherlands
There you go, you would have failed the test right there. Making assumptions without understanding the conditions. The observers didn't know what to detect, I did, since I generated the samples. Each round had diminishing differences so only the most keen observers would be able to detect if a difference even existed. We expected close to a 90 % failure rate, with the result being that we found the 10% who could be trained to do the job.
OK my premisse was too fast. But still. In a double blind testing environment even you had to be "blind".
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 8:15 PM Post #23,276 of 82,870

slefty

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Posts
142
Likes
321
Location
SoCal
Maybe Mike was observing the posting on these threads. In case you didn't catch it he said yesterday that he is going to make a version of the tone arm and lifter that can be mounted on other tables. Somewhere around Bifrost price if I recall, don't quote me, it's something like that.
Hadn't seen that. I don't follow many threads on Head-fi. It is good news.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 8:25 PM Post #23,278 of 82,870

Pietro Cozzi Tinin

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Posts
4,051
Likes
9,587
Location
Delft, The Netherlands
That's nonsense. Can't run a proper test without setting it up properly.
That's true. But the people who set it up are not a part of the scientific group.
I understood you was.

There are very strict academic rules in Europe for scientists (who are only the ones with a PhD).
And I guess its the same there.
And...... I have no insight in the testing you really did. For all I said you could have done it brilliantly from the book.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 9:13 PM Post #23,279 of 82,870

kstuart

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Posts
1,281
Likes
298
Here is a detailed description of differences in sound during the break-in process of a Schiit Bifrost DAC. I think somewhere in that thread, there is a reference to Jason acknowledging privately that they hear the same differences at Schiit. Many other people hear the same things (including some who pipe up in the thread), including professional recording engineers. There are many plausible scientific reasons for burn-in. Here is the thread:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/schiit-bifrost-dac-my-break-in-diary.285693/

Also, I once purchased a pair of expensive new release headphones and I did not like them at all, so I said to myself "Fine, I'll sell them on head-fi and get something different. But I should at least review them. So, to do the most rigorous review, I'll burn them in for 100 hours." So, I put them in a closet attached to a music player for 4 days. After the 4 days, I tried them again, and most of the flaws had vanished. I did the review and kept them for a long while.

So, in that case, I had a strong bias to continue to dislike them so that I could sell them. Therefore, no bias could be involved. And, if the affect was so subtle that I could be mistaken, then my bias to sell them would have caused me to decide that nothing had changed. Only one data point, but seemed pretty convincing to me that that pair of dynamic headphones benefited from burn-in.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 9:48 PM Post #23,280 of 82,870

sublime9

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Posts
311
Likes
494
What's not silly is that the designer of Yggdrasil says that DAC needs time (~24 hours) powered on to sound its best for the reasons landroni mentioned a few posts above. This is why Schiit recommends leaving Yggdrasil on all the time. So, it's not silly to call out a point of view that says leaving Yggdrasil on all the time is "Foo foo. Silly". As has been pointed out, OldRoadToad is free to do whatever he wants. But his point of view is on thin ice....


24 hours to reach thermal equilibrium? I cry BULLSCHITT and I don't care who said it, Mike included. Two hours at the most and at that point variations due to weather, the big yellow ball in the sky called the sun, human bodies in the room, the toaster over in the kitchen making English muffins are going to dominate the last 22 hours.

Now in 15 billions years after the heat death of the universe has rendered all time and space to 2.9 degrees Kelvin, then you should leave Yggy on for 24 hours. But you can't because of the whole heat death of the universe thing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top