[cgb3]

Plus.
Crystal Louisiana's Hot Sauce; like a liquid pepper grinder, only more.

Early 1981, I spent 10 months in Biloxi, MS (Keesler AFB) AF tech school. Crystal was on every chow hall table. Good sauce.

 

[Ripper2860]

Wrong. It’s a California thang! Ugh.

And it can't be both?

Besides, Texas is on its way to being the new California.

 

[Paladin79]

One hopes that one’s friends have the chops to say what they think, but I do understand the social contract (if you will) to be complimentary or neutral. But the ”semi-blind” test with those you don’t know so well is a fascinating method. I like the way you roll there.

Thanks you are most kind. I listen to other people, some of them anyway.
I am fortunate to live in a college town and I am often humbled by the knowledge of others. Here I often look to folks like Ripper, Cowen, FLTWS, Rensek, and Audiogal.

 

[Roy G. Biv]

And it can't be both?

Besides, Texas is on its way to being the new California.

Take that back!

 

[npfries]

Take that back!

It’s ok, NC is on its way to being the next Texas. Well, at least the Austin part. Not so much the rest.

 

[Ripper2860]

I'll give you that as it relates to Asheville, NC.

BTW -- Austin is already well into its Californication process, so by the rule of transitive property that would mean North Carolina = California.

 

[bcowen]

IIRC -- Headed to production. Tuned by ear. No measurements yet. Very hot!

I have some nice early '60's Foton 6N6P's waiting for it. Hopefully they'll still be good when it's released.

 

[bcowen]

I do not think the hardwoods I use affect sound...

What?!?!?!? All these years of extensive educational effort in vain? Harrumph.

 

[bcowen]

It's now well established readers of this thread prefer blue.

Well glory be. I just knew that we'd agree on something at some point.

 

[JamminVMI]

Thanks you are most kind. I listen to other people, some of them anyway.
I am fortunate to live in a college town and I am often humbled by the knowledge of others. Here I often look to folks like Ripper, Cowen, FLTWS, Rensek, and Audiogal.

And where you have the knowledge, you also share freely, as do many here. ‘Nuff said!

 

[bcowen]

It’s ok, NC is on its way to being the next Texas. Well, at least the Austin part. Not so much the rest.

Take that back!

(if Asheville would slide off the side of the mountain into Tennessee we'd be in the clear).

 

[tincanear]

Well glory be. I just knew that we'd agree on something at some point.

just a concidence (same way the planets line up now and then)

 

[bcowen]

just a concidence

LOL! I know very little about statistics (other than I hated it in college), but chances are that if enough topics are covered we'll eventually run across one we agree on. Maybe only one, but you never know.

 

[Rowethren]

I have some nice early '60's Foton 6N6P's waiting for it. Hopefully they'll still be good when it's released.

"Some"

 

[Crowbar44]

Hmmm. But if your only goal is to gather evidence whether or not the detection of a difference in sound is random or not, couldn't a binary test (test subject correctly identifies when a change is made to the system using only his ears versus test subject does not) produce meaningful results? With a large enough sample (both of subjects and attempts by each subject), wouldn't a judgement be possible? If 50% of the subjects were right 50% of the time, that seems like pretty strong evidence of random guessing. But if 90% of the subjects were right 90% of the time, that seems like pretty strong evidence of the ability to detect a change in sound brought on by a discreet change in the reproduction system.

Just to keep us debating this forever, I'm sure Fate would ensure the results of such a test would be 45% of the subjects were correct 60% of the time...

Of course, even if you could claim there is only one variable in the reproduction system, who could possibly identify the variables in the subjects? But then doesn't that lead to a whole other area it might be possible to quantify: how big a change in the sound reproduction system (of course as quantified by some arbitrary measurement, e.g. THD, 2nd order harmonics, this dither algorithm or that dither algorithm, etc.) is required for the difference to be detected reliably?

I was thinking of something along these lines...

For example: Test subject listens to a Bifrost 2 for 5-10 minutes using a specified track. They are not told it is a Bifrost 2, just that it is DAC A. They then listen to the same track on a Modi for 5-10 minutes, again not told it is a Modi, just that it is DAC B. Amp, headphones, cables and source are all the same. They are then randomly played either DAC A or DAC B and asked which it is. The data is then coded as "correct" if they get it right, "incorrect" if they get it wrong.

If the reality is that only 5% of the population can detect a difference between 2 DACs, then you're going to need far more test subjects to prove that than if the reality is that 95% of the population can detect a difference.

And let me state that I'm a subjectivist audiophile - and I don't have an axe to grind here....and now that I think about it - I probably don't have time for this schiit anyway ...I wrote my original post after a few glasses of wine and a slab of Texas brisket!