Testing audiophile claims and myths

[DaBomb77766]

Quote:

Not at all, I have on very rare occasions seen dragonfruits in France, but I've never seen sugar-apples, I presume it's the same in the Netherlands.
If you have Asian markets newr where you live, that's usually where you can find really exotic fruits, like durians (

) for example.

If by exotic you mean gross then there's tons of food like that in Asia!

 

[supra1988t]

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
 
I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.  
I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing. 

 

[drez]

Quote:

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
 
I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.  
I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing. 

 
Not at all - I think this testing you have conducted is very useful and not indicative of a lack of hearing ability.  Has me tempted to test a cheaper DAC than the one I am currently using also in case I can make some profit.

 

[bigshot]

Next do the same thing with a midrange CD player and a DAC. I bet you find they're pretty much the same too.

 

[Tilpo]

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.

I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.  
I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing. 

You should be happy. It safes you a lot of money, and leaves you with more money to spend on headphones, speakers and music.

 

[Astrozombie]

I always thought burn-in was real, but i had a little moment recently..........
 
While i was waiting for a new receiver, i moved the old setup to my uncle's place and temporarily used the TV speakers. At first i was like "This is horrible!!" But about a week later i was getting used to the sound and said "hey it's not so bad? Are the speakers burning in? doubtful" Maybe there is something to this "just getting used to the sound so you overlook the flaws" type of deal

 

[kiteki]

I find it a little funny NwAv says 99.99% of what we hear is filtered, does he have any source to this information at all?  That is a pretty insane number.

 

[scootsit]

Define filtered.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I conducted my own little blind test today, the results of which I'm not too happy with.
 
I compared my new Shiit Bifrost DAC to the stock DAC in my Squeezebox touch.  The levels are matched perfectly (I cant hear a difference) and I had my fiance switch back between inputs on a Marantz Model 3600 which feeds a Knight KB-85 tube amp powering Electrovoice Royal 400s.  I listen to a handful of highres and standard resolution tracks that I am familiar with and had her switch inputs on my command.  
I can hardly tell a difference and I definitely couldn't tell which I was listening to.  I was only doing listening A/B and didn't actually try to ABX but I doubt I'd be able to.  I am going to do some more listening using my Glow Amp/650s as well but it looks like the Schiit might be going back.  I am a little disappointed that I can't tell a difference and I hope the SB DAC is better than expected and its not my hearing. 

 
I do not think it has anything to do with either DAC or your hearing. Instead it is all down to the perception of sound quality with and without other stimuli such as brand, image and cost.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I always thought burn-in was real, but i had a little moment recently..........
 
While i was waiting for a new receiver, i moved the old setup to my uncle's place and temporarily used the TV speakers. At first i was like "This is horrible!!" But about a week later i was getting used to the sound and said "hey it's not so bad? Are the speakers burning in? doubtful" Maybe there is something to this "just getting used to the sound so you overlook the flaws" type of deal

 
I had that same moment with vintage headphones. How could they be burning in after so much use?

 

[kiteki]

Define filtered.

 
Don't ask me, I'm not the one writing quasi-science in black ink.
 
I assume he means that 99.99% is filtered which implicated that only 00.01% of the sounds around us are actually perceived / heard.  So, since only 00.01% makes it across the very thin bridge, it's easy for the mind to make you hear what you expect to hear.
 
So for example, if you see a dog disguised at a cat, when it barks you actually hear a meow.  If you throw a blanket over the dogcat, you hear a woof.
 
Pretty simple really.
 
...

 

[scootsit]

So 99.99% of auditory response is defined by visual cues?

 

[kiteki]

He is convinced that the auditory response is heavily influenced by visual cues - yes.
 
His evidence to support it is
 
- 99.99% is filtered (source?)
 
- Matrixhifi test
 
- McGurk effect
 
 
The first one is conjured from thin air, as far as we're all concerned, until he links to a scientific source to back up such as insane number.
 
The second one is a joke, there was nothing scientific about that test, and no one said they could hear a difference prior to the blanket anyway.
 
The third one is a linguistic effect in how we rapidly sort information into filing cabinets, we identify sonic patterns, it's very difficult to hear individual sounds and process all of it, however when you hear them in a pattern you can process blocks.  That's exactly how we read fast, or how chess players can play 2 minute games, they're looking at everything in pattern blocks, not letter by letter.
 
This is easy to see in this example...
 

Spoiler: how%20to%20read%20fast

 
The frsit one is cerunjod form tihn air, as far as w'ere all cocnnered, uitnl he lnkis to a sftciiienc surcoe to bcak up scuh as insnae nbuemr.

The socned one is a jkoe, terhe was ntonhig seitciinfc auobt taht tset, and no one siad tehy colud haer a dferinecfe proir to the bnklaet awynay.

The thrid one is a lgtuisiinc eefcft in how we rdaiply srot ifniaomotrn itno filnig cniaetbs, we iitndefy soinc ptntraes, i'ts vrey dliciffut to haer iuvniaddil sudons and pcsores all of it, heweovr wehn you haer tehm in a pttearn you can pcoress bclkos. T'tahs ealctxy how we raed fsat, or how ceshs playres can paly 2 muinte gmeas, tyre'he lkoniog at etihyvrneg in ptraetn bcklos, not lteter by letetr.

Tihs is esay to see in tihs eplaxme...
 

 
 
So when there is a visual of someone making lip movements, you can process the sonic information even faster, it's all so we can listen quickly and react quickly.
 
 
So what does this have to do with audio?  It means when you're listening to music and audio components your mind makes them more similar than different.
 
It means once you've identified a typical pattern of sounds they are assigned a value and the excessive information is discarded.
 
When you're listening to a more advanced cable, DAC, amplifier, speaker, IEM, capacitor, power supply or any really high-end $1k+ component, you're filtering out 99.99% and this makes it very difficult to pass a blind test.
 
 
I am joking in the underlined parts, but do you see how easy it is to twist anything to your liking?  NwAv is essentially defending subjectivism, he's basically posited now with his 99.99% assertion that high-end systems actually have a lot information in them which is difficult to hear.
 
Even if he didn't imply that, he can't prove the opposite now can he, if he can't even hear it. 
 
At this point, subliminal audio cues come into play as well, which have been scientifically proven.
 
 

"Subliminal audio stimuli

There were too few studies to complete a meta-analysis on this sub-category (n = 3), however, all studies were similar in that they examined how the brain responds to changes in a subliminal auditory stimulus. The left lateral cerebellum, left superior temporal gyrus and left insular cortex were most significantly activated in response to subliminal auditory changes. However, in one study, repetition of a voice was shown to reduce insular cortex activation (Kouider et al., 2010). Thus, regions associated with speech production (Broca's area), speech comprehension (Wernicke's area) and somatosensory responses seem to be activated independently of conscious awareness. These regions might be particularly susceptible to heightened activation during auditory hallucinations that are perceived to be independent of conscious volition, as experienced by, for example, those with schizophrenia."
 
source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911011529
 
 
It's entertaining watching pseudo-science self-implode.
 
(the 1.4 million visitors to that place most likely don't think so though)

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

 
Don't ask me, I'm not the one writing quasi-science in black ink.

You do that in every post.
 
It's true we filter out information all the time. Human memory performs at different levels. Only the information that survives beyond sensory memory and into short term memory is of any use beyond reaction. The rest is filtered out and we don't make use of it.
 
There's a psychological aspect as well. We only tend to remember what matches our preconceptions or expectations, our schemas. So in the case of high end audio, we're more likely to remember everything that matches what we expect to hear from a component. So with an expensive cable, we'll remember the positive, and with a cheap cable we'll remember the negative. That's if we have a preconceived notion that the high end cable will sound better. It ties into expectation bias.
 
I don't know where he got the specific number, but it's most likely he didn't mean it as factual and instead as a generalization. Why don't you try to message him yourself?

 

[kiteki]

 
There's a psychological aspect as well. We only tend to remember what matches our preconceptions or expectations, our schemas. So in the case of high end audio, we're more likely to remember everything that matches what we expect to hear from a component. So with an expensive cable, we'll remember the positive, and with a cheap cable we'll remember the negative. That's if we have a preconceived notion that the high end cable will sound better. It ties into expectation bias.

 
I agree with that part.  If someone has spent $300 on a cable or a capacitor, it's most likely not for an experiment, they are somehow convinced - or expecting - it to sound better, this will influece their experience, if they are truly convinced, and then they'll tell their associates or the internet how good whatever cable is.  This is a very subjective and unscientific scenario though, and ties into marketing, like Beats headphones.  I don't think this is relevant to the true differences in audio, they shouldn't be mixed together into the same cocktail.
 
I speculate on some quasi-science but I don't write about it like it's fact, that's what I meant by black ink.
 
For example, a few years ago I may have speculated on subliminal advertising, that is quasi-science, now it's proven science, do you follow?
 
Edit:  For example I don't write in black ink or tell anyone that DSD sounds better than PCM, I just speculate on that it could.  See the difference?