[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pageman99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My girlfriend is blind and she can walk right up to my car and grab the handle of the door first time everytime. She just snaps her fingers a couple of times and listens for the echo. This gives her a sonic picture of the car and she walks right up and grabs that handle.

That's cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif The discussions generally go something like this: * * * Tell me you haven't seen this same discussion over and over and over and over and over on this site.

Oh my, your description of the "usual" interchange is hilarious. Had me rolling on the floor. They all go exactly like that.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pageman99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Double blind tests like this are generally useless. Are the testers testing the equipment or the perceptual skills of the subjects? I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize this test is poorly designed if it can't isolate these two variables. Just because a test is double blind doesn't mean all the variables are accounted for, let alone isolated from each other. It's almost impossible to design a test isolating one from the other hence, useless. The conclusions are simply silly.

Well, if you have a better design that doesnt involve sighted listening tests which are very unreliable for instance as shown in the Masters and Clark article where the sighted tests showed positive results but the same listeners couldnt detect a difference unsighted at all beyond random chance, I would be interested to hear it.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Simply based upon personal observations of improved sound qualitys, whos audiophile terms I am only now comming to appreciate after hearing these improvements and then finding the words to describe the experience, is all the proof I need to know the more I have spent the better the presentation.

I don't care to play verbal ping pong in some arcane debate with the self proclaimed scholarly in the process of internet debates. Some are simply better prepared in that entertainment, whereas mine is listening pleasure.

There are simply to many variables to the supposition put forth as evidence than i care to point out. If a Sony Diskman and whatever out to HD-580 entertains you I suggest everyone to try it and be satisfied. But I tell you from experience there are qualities to sound which can only be heard and appreciated by in home leanthly trials which is why I then upgraded for the sonic improvements doing so afforded my listing pleasure. I didn't measure anything the least of which was cost/benefit analysis which I believe is the point here, that cheaper is as good. What is the value of the improvements I hear.
What's the value to center seating 15 rows back at the live event of your choice or perhaps standing, vs at the refreshment stand for the quantity of intake it provides to ones personal experience of the good event? Whats more enjoyable to some? More concert going general admission, or better quality of the experience with better centered seating? Depends upon the music being played... And what I want....

Indeed, lots of variables, of tone, ambiance, balance, volume and what we're listening for, audiopile qualities, or just for awhile....

Buy the cheapest KIT that you can. And then go and play keyboard warrior proposing its all the same, but don't expect for many of us to let that stand in the face of most of our, and most impotant to me, my personal experience...

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't care to play verbal ping pong in some arcane debate with the self proclaimed scholarly in the process of internet debates.

And yet here you are.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif And yet here you are.

True, but it's only because we can't help ourselves. It's like picking at a scab that you know is gonna hurt when it comes off . . . but you still do it.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

And yet here you are.

I stated my opinion and experience, yet here you are discounting that to point out some trivial inconsistancy, which is your game and part of this ping pong I refered to.

No, the mening was i have no links to refute and pick apart line and point by point in the arguement that a Discman sound as good as a Highend CDP.

Team keyboard warrior, cheap KIT, deaf bastards is what your type represent here to me...And I laugh !!!

 

[elrod-tom]

Folks, let's keep the noise level down in here, K??

 

[zheka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dude, see my comment about opinions... The OP posted about a double blind test result he'd seen, and my comment is that the result reveals something akin to saying there is no difference between a vintage Chateau Mouton Rothchild and your garden variety cheap red wine because both are red wines and their test group preferred the cheap red wine. This is nonsense on it's face in so far as it applies to most people who post here, and my comment was to that effect.

Audible differences between different digital sources or power amplifiers are never as pronounced as your analogy implies. Besides, blind tasting is widely accepted way of wine evaluation where as to many in audiophile world blind testing is heresy. BTW, do you personally find any ABX tests trustworthy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif The rest was to point out why these particular types of threads prove irritating to those of us on the mod staff...it's not like this is the first time we've gone round with this.

Well, it’s good to know that even the high priests are not without biases

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zheka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Audible differences between different digital sources or power amplifiers are never as pronounced as your analogy implies.

Actually, they ARE that pronounced in this particular example...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zheka /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, do you personally find any ABX tests trustworthy?

I find them somewhat useful...but I find extended listening to be moreso. I could elaborate but I'm on my way out the door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zheka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, it’s good to know that even the high priests are not without biases

Nobody is without bias...mine is against pointless re-hashing of arguments that have no end point.

 

[zheka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, they ARE that pronounced in this particular example...

Obviously the participants of Matrixhifi experiment did not find that to be the case. I know of no other tests that compared the two. Do you? Even if you don’t, I would feel much better about your outright dismissal of the test if you could point me to any positive ABX test of modern digital sources.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you mean by less favourable, that seems to be a contradiction with LIKES, do you mean technically superior , more popular or more recognised as higher end ? I dont really see a problem here, I would call it $2000 dollars saved that can be spent on CDs and not a cause for any concern or requiring any major restruicturing of universal laws

Slightly better sounding. Technically superieur doesn't nearly indicate it would sound better! I hve experienced all to often that something on paper looks great but sounds bad.

how do you translate the 2000 dollars difference into more likable, slightly better sounding or favourable. I would go for the best sounding source, but 2000 dollars is a serious audiophile dilemma.

Oh, and the differences between a 500 dollar source and a 3000 dollar source can be night and day. I can't believe those guys didn't hear a more distinct difference between the sources. I always did at home and in audio shops i visited, also if sound was running trough speakers i could distinctively tell wich player was playing.

There must be something distinct; i've never heard 2 players sounding the same(of 2 different brands, of course). Some sound more open, some more closed in, some more warm, some more bright, more extension, less bass/more bass, closer to the listener/further away etc. I wonder where those guys listened to during the test. Or where they all chatting and blabing during the test and distracted.

 

[germanium]

I have had cheaper gear sound better than some very high end gear but the cheaper gear was not stock (I have modified it to give it better resolution with out unduly altering the appearant frequency responce, It actually measured the same in this regard but sounded quite different). That is not to say the more expensive gear didn't have potential but that potential was wasted on obtaining a particular sonic signature which was not in any way neutral sounding at all. I found the more expensive gear in some cases to sound somewhat veiled as a result. They were shooting for an authoratative sound thay was bass heavy with lots of punch but without reguard to how real instruments sound at all. It may be this reason that the discman was preferred to the more expensive gear in that it sounded more like the real instrument sounds rather than some designers take on how music should sound. Note I used the term designer not engineer. The two can be one but operating in a different mode, one looking at the technical specs & the other looking at achieving the house sound that the company has agreed to shoot for.

I personally try to go for the sound of how real instruments sound especially if I have a known recording in which I was involved in it's making. All the other characteristics beyond that such as soundstage & imaging are icing on the cake which can be improved without sacrificing this neutrality. This is what a stereo should in fact do. I feel that more expensive gear that use high spec parts only to then intentionally color the sound later is a complete wast of time. You sacrifice the very thing you claim to be shooting for by using the better parts.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ you can argue the lowest cheap kit or lowest form of format which makes no difference til you're blue in the face for all i care. As well as cut and paste all day long for the maths as evidence of what you do not hear, for all I care. Just don't think for a minute you can tell me what I don't hear and expect it to go unchallenged . I still question you and your geeky ilks approach to what sounds good, as well as your ability to hear properly ! LOL

Hi-Finthen, I notice that I haven't seen you post your results in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248248

I would love to see what type of scores someone with your exceptional hearing ability can achieve.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi-Finthen, I notice that I haven't seen you post your results in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248248 I would love to see what type of scores someone with your exceptional hearing ability can achieve.

Yep, in the spirit of disclosure I have done mine. Basically normal (6.4Hz adaptive tone, 75% tone and 84% rythmn) not great, but then I never claimed to have great hearing, just good enough hearing.

But Hi-Finthen wont bite on anything that asks him to support his assertions of hearing superiority, I have already tried a few times.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi-Finthen, I notice that I haven't seen you post your results in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248248 I would love to see what type of scores someone with your exceptional hearing ability can achieve.

I seems to me these tests prove diddly squat with respect to the ability to perceive differences between CD players under various conditions.