[Paladin79]

I have a problem with any blind test that happens on equipment that is not yours. Or with records or music files that you do not normally listen to. How are you going to have any chance of discerning an incredibly subtle difference (like a connector) if everything else involved isn't familiar? I wouldn't even be able to tell the difference of nearly anything audio related if I were blind testing with music or equipment I wasn't familiar with.

Somebody somewhere was trying to convince everybody that you can't hear a difference between 128kbps and 24/192 and there was this online test you take to prove it. Well of course you can't. You don't know the song, your using a web browser as a player, who knows where the files came from, the recordings themselves were terrible, and it's all probably compressed in one way or another anyway because of the software. What a stupid test.

As far as my upcoming 6sn7 equivalent test, I designed four identical amps just for this purpose. Several folks here know the amp in its later iterations, and most agree the amp shows off tube sound. The music used was recorded specifically to show off 25 audio criteria, we used it on DACS, it will be used on tubes. Some of the folks listening performed on said test music. The gentleman who put this together is highly regarded in his field. We will be using a quad of Sennheiser HD800's with Identical cables I built. Folks behind the scenes will be adjusting audio levels so they match up. This is a long process and eight of us listened and chose the top 52 tubes we chose blind using the above methods, I want to say we had around 1900 different tubes but some are from the same manufacturers so we decided on the best of a specific brand. A bit of thought was put into this. Covid delayed this and we want to insure all are safe when we get back into final testing.

 

[Pondoro]

As far as my upcoming 6sn7 equivalent test, I designed four identical amps just for this purpose. Several folks here know the amp in its later iterations, and most agree the amp shows off tube sound. The music used was recorded specifically to show off 25 audio criteria, we used it on DACS, it will be used on tubes. Some of the folks listening performed on said test music. The gentleman who put this together is highly regarded in his field. We will be using a quad of Sennheiser HD800's with Identical cables I built. Folks behind the scenes will be adjusting audio levels so they match up. This is a long process and eight of us listened and chose the top 52 tubes we chose blind using the above methods, I want to say we had around 1900 different tubes but some are from the same manufacturers so we decided on the best of a specific brand. A bit of thought was put into this. Covid delayed this and we want to insure all are safe when we get back into final testing.

Paladin - sounds like you build tube amps. If you build two identical amps (same tubes, layout, etc.) do they sound different? I build drums and ukuleles. They all have their own sound. Now wood is a lot more variable than steel, copper and glass (one might think), but I have wondered how much variation an analog design exhibits from one to the next. I am a skeptic of some of the tweaks argued as audible in audiophilia, but I also do not believe anything that is analog is "never affected."

 

[Zachik]

The music used was recorded specifically to show off 25 audio criteria, we used it on DACS, it will be used on tubes.

Can you provide more info on those music tracks?
Do I understand correctly that those are NOT tracks that are available to the public to buy or stream?

I am curious, because I have always been interested in what test tracks people use to audition gear. I have a short list of tracks I use, but they're all from album in CD quality or better by artists such as Adele, Dire Straits, Coldplay, Lorde, Metallica, etc. Nothing that was recorded for the purpose of showing off something or to test gear

 

[Paladin79]

Paladin - sounds like you build tube amps. If you build two identical amps (same tubes, layout, etc.) do they sound different? I build drums and ukuleles. They all have their own sound. Now wood is a lot more variable than steel, copper and glass (one might think), but I have wondered how much variation an analog design exhibits from one to the next. I am a skeptic of some of the tweaks argued as audible in audiophilia, but I also do not believe anything that is analog is "never affected."

I do not think the hardwoods I use affect sound, now finding a quad of identical Tung Sol 5998’s was not easy. On my four test amps I used walnut. A large metal box with proper airflow covers the tubes. Amps I have sent to friends have varied because of different tubes, wire and components I might use. @bcowen gifted me parts he wanted in his amp and he wanted it built sideways, his most likely has a unique sound.

I did just try some ZMF Verite open headphones and there are folks who claim the woods used there sound different but you have a transducer involved. My amps have a top metal plate where most of the electronics are located, the wood is not much of the equation like the inside of a drum or Ukulele.

 

[Paladin79]

Can you provide more info on those music tracks?
Do I understand correctly that those are NOT tracks that are available to the public to buy or stream?

I am curious, because I have always been interested in what test tracks people use to audition gear. I have a short list of tracks I use, but they're all from album in CD quality or better by artists such as Adele, Dire Straits, Coldplay, Lorde, Metallica, etc. Nothing that was recorded for the purpose of showing off something or to test gear

They are not tracks available to the public. Many of the performers may become well known and there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to release the tracks. Imagine finding early work by a Joshua Bell. He was local. There are some things David Chesky produces and probably gives away on HDTracks that are made to show off different aspects of sound. Its been a while since I looked there but they may well still be available. We use a numeric scoring system and if a tube rates say 95 out of 100 you know it is capable of a lot more than bass slam or whatever. This may not be a perfect system, but it is our system. You have no idea if you are listening to a $20 tube or one that fetches $1,000 up. To date we have more than $50k invested but I got off cheap by building four amps.

You will be getting a loaner amp I built once @AudioGal sends it on to you and I included some decent tubes with it, this I can freely do.

 

[wout31]

Can you provide more info on those music tracks?
Do I understand correctly that those are NOT tracks that are available to the public to buy or stream?

I am curious, because I have always been interested in what test tracks people use to audition gear. I have a short list of tracks I use, but they're all from album in CD quality or better by artists such as Adele, Dire Straits, Coldplay, Lorde, Metallica, etc. Nothing that was recorded for the purpose of showing off something or to test gear

Try Sound Liaison recordings

 

[macdonjh]

I tried the coat hanger experiment myself, and I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with my amp. I get like no sound at all

Well, duh, you can't connect it like that, you have to cut a section out of it so you have two ends and a straight section in the middle... Other than that, at least you chose a blue one. It's now well established readers of this thread prefer blue.

 

[438555]

Well, duh, you can't connect it like that, you have to cut a section out of it so you have two ends and a straight section in the middle... Other than that, at least you chose a blue one. It's now well established readers of this thread prefer blue.

no, if I just connect it to both ends it's like bi-wiring. much higher fidelity. Plus the hangy part in the middle can be used to keep it up off the floor, to avoid unwanted vibrations

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

Agree, still the conclusions can be totally wrong because nothing and nobody is perfect so there can always be anomalies. Viewpoints change over time with new discovered information. In that sense it is just a well balanced conclusion at a certain point in time, based on the knowledge at that time. New times, new knowledge, different outcome.

There's a real HUGE gap between the quality of acquired data and long after that the conclusions on makes.
In science, as a rule, one first theorises around a stated question to a possible answer. That's where most problems begin.
BUT if data were 100% objective then there can follow a truthful (trial) conclusion.
Anomalies can be avoided 100% and have nothing to do with viewpoints.

Then, I do hear differences between cables and other stuff. It is the only way I choose my audio.
The statement that there's no hearable difference between say cables can NOT be made by someone else than yourself.
In my opinion all engineers, quasi scientists and non believers are simply deaf and lack the ability to hear.
Like two DACS sound different. Two cables will sound different too.
One buys whatever one likes.
@PolarBehr's story is old and disqualified ages ago. Only recounted by ignorants trying to score brownie points.
On the other hand. If one is deaf.. good for the wallet yes?
I really do not understand the urge from some people here to disqualify others by ridiculing their position on the sound only they hear in their ears.
Get real. Grow up. I wear a colander on my head. You like to pierce your frenulum. Stop pretending you know people better than they know themselves.
It's atrocious, ridiculous, childish etc.

Now it is of course time to come with all those snake oil stories that 1.are not what this is about and 2.now only would serve to prove my point.

 

[Ripper2860]

Oh. So you need to remove the coat first? Doh!!

 

[macdonjh]

Oh. So you need to remove the coat first? Doh!!

Well, yeah. The coat would weigh down your new interconnect, negating the positive effect of the hangy part. Besides, it would cover it up, too and then you would lose all effect of knowing you were listening to the blue one.

@Dana Reed thank you for pointing out the utility of the hangy part. Integrated riser, great design feature. Do you have to pay extra for that?

@Pietro Cozzi Tinin a design this well thought out is surely backed by proper science, no?

 

[macdonjh]

Like two DACS sound different. Two cables will sound different too.

Now it is of course time to come with all those snake oil stories that 1.are not what this is about and 2.now only would serve to prove my point.

The first sentence above struck a chord with me vis a vis our earlier posts about whether or not there was anything objective to be learned in blind audio testing. Your statement sums up what I was trying to express: I think it's possible to design and perform an audio test which identifies there is a difference between two pieces of audio gear, and perhaps even put some boundaries to how many people can hear the difference (certainly not who can hear the difference, though). I believe that would be the limit of objectivity, though. I also believe having 100 test subjects describe the difference heard would yield a high number of different answers.

Personal, real-world example (quite similar to everyone else's experience): one of the sub-topics in one of the IEM threads I participate in here is a debate about the sound of one of that company's IEMs (of course). There are really only three camps: those who think the IEM bass is too much, those who think the treble is "hot"/ zingy, and those who agree with me that these particular IEMs are wonderful (and thus those folks are right). Same IEMs, very different perceptions about how they sound. But everyone participating in the discussion agrees they sound different than other IEMs they own/ have heard.

As to the second sentence above: bravo.

 

[Roy G. Biv]

@PolarBehr's story is old and disqualified ages ago. Only recounted by ignorants trying to score brownie points.

I really do not understand the urge from some people here to disqualify others by ridiculing their position on the sound only they hear in their ears.
Get real. Grow up. I wear a colander on my head. You like to pierce your frenulum (was that necessary?) . Stop pretending you know people better than they know themselves.
It's atrocious, ridiculous, childish etc.

Brownie points for your continuing world-class arrogance.
Please, please put me on your ignore list if you haven't already done so.

 

[Paladin79]

The first sentence above struck a chord with me vis a vis our earlier posts about whether or not there was anything objective to be learned in blind audio testing. Your statement sums up what I was trying to express: I think it's possible to design and perform an audio test which identifies there is a difference between two pieces of audio gear, and perhaps even put some boundaries to how many people can hear the difference (certainly not who can hear the difference, though). I believe that would be the limit of objectivity, though. I also believe having 100 test subjects describe the difference heard would yield a high number of different answers.

Personal, real-world example (quite similar to everyone else's experience): one of the sub-topics in one of the IEM threads I participate in here is a debate about the sound of one of that company's IEMs (of course). There are really only three camps: those who think the IEM bass is too much, those who think the treble is "hot"/ zingy, and those who agree with me that these particular IEMs are wonderful (and thus those folks are right). Same IEMs, very different perceptions about how they sound. But everyone participating in the discussion agrees they sound different than other IEMs they own/ have heard.

As to the second sentence above: bravo.

There can be a higher number of different answers but there are some who believe in the accuracy of large groups when you do an average. Check out the work of Francis Galton.

"The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds.[6] This has contributed to the insight in cognitive science that a crowd's individual judgments can be modeled as a probability distribution of responses with the median centered near the true value of the quantity to be estimated.[7]"

Statisticians involved in some of my audio groups testing pointed out such things. It is rare for one person in the group to arrive at the same answer as the group average, but I have seen it happen.

One of the things my group hopes to learn is, are there some $20 tubes out there that are more well received than some of the extremely pricey ones. If you are handed two tubes and know one costs $1,000 many people think it must be better. Expectation bias. Blind testing gets us away from that. IMHO. I also own test equipment and have access to most anything I do not own but what fun is that? I would rather listen, and choose.

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

Brownie points for your continuing world-class arrogance.
Please, please put me on your ignore list if you haven't already done so.

Why would I?
You don't see me disqualifying others.
I ask people here to keep each other in one piece, even when they have other believes than one has.
Is preaching against demoting others arrogance?
That's very weak.
Why don't you put me on your ignore list. Beter no?
I like to read the things you write. I like most of it.
And as a rule I can learn from it.