[Zapp_Fan]

Yeah I'm also interested in specifics. I don't know if you follow this forum or thread, but people who have actually done these tests with proper ABX gear are not common, so deets are a rare treat. Speaking for myself It's definitely an "interest" question, not an "I don't believe you" question.

 

[castleofargh]

once we're past the point of established noticeable difference, discussing about significance is entirely subjective.
for the anecdote, most of the time I find it easier to notice something using a single speaker.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Blind level matched ABX box.

What do you suppose was broken, set up incorrectly, or used outside of design specifications? Or is this another magic moment that nobody can understand or even measure. Why is it that only people with expensive gear seem to have superhuman powers of hearing?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Some folks find that 128k MP3 sounds the same as FLAC. I believe them....[2] it's their gear and their ears in their room.

1. I'm one of those people, although that's only true for a very small number of recordings. The vast majority of the time I find it trivially easy to tell the difference. As the bit rate increases, so the number of recordings where I can't tell the difference increases. By the time I get to the more recent versions of 320kbps MP3 and AAC, there's almost no recordings where I can tell the difference.

2. Yep, the old audiophile cliche that's utter nonsense! A. I've worked in various world class, multi-million dollar studios for over 25 years. What's wrong with the gear and rooms in these studios, in what way is your gear and room superior? B. It's typically got nothing to do with "their ears". Many of the people I deal with, particularly students and other younger people, have much better ears than me but they have a far poorer ability to analyse and discriminate what their ears are hearing.

Don't you have anything other than several decade old audiophile cliches/myths which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false?

I'm sorry my response sounds overly harsh. I realise that audiophiles are bombarded by audiophile marketing, reviews and impressions/opinions and that except for relatively obscure little corners like this sub-forum and the world of professional audio practitioners (which generally keeps it's distance from the audiophile world), there's little/nothing the average audiophile would ever encounter to cause them to question the wealth of audiophile "information". It's easy to stand here and dismiss audiophiles as gullible saps who've been utterly suckered by the audiophile industry but that's not really fair. It's difficult or even near impossible to avoid being sucked-in if all the information one receives fundamentally says the same thing.

That's why this thread was started and why it's a "sticky" but most audiophiles either like believing what they've been led to believe and therefore avoid any information which might cause them to question their belief or, are so indoctrinated that they come to this thread (and others like it) to discredit/disprove the information presented here. That's of course where we run into disputes and "harsh" responses, because there is no reliable evidence with which to discredit or disprove the information here, ALL the reliable evidence does the exact opposite (which is why that information is here in the first place), all they have is their unquestionable belief and the same old cliches/myths that previous generations of audiophiles invented to justify their unquestionable beliefs. What we therefore end up with is an intermittent stream of audiophiles totally convinced the information here is unquestionably wrong and a vicious circle of the same cliches/myths, which is why this thread is 640 pages long, when about 20 should have been more than enough and why my response is harsher than you personally deserve!

G

 

[taffy2207]

Why is it that only people with expensive gear seem to have superhuman powers of hearing?

It's a self defence mechanism to protect themselves from the 'Morning after buyers regret' feeling that they've radically overspent. It's something that's becoming more and more prevalent around the forums. i.e. It costs more, therefore, it's better. Shiny new toy syndrome is a powerful force, as is Elitism.

 

[bigshot]

I'm still really interested in hearing the details of that controlled comparison test that revealed audible differences between modern DACs.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yeah, like was there an EQ or other sound processing equipt. in the chain between one of the DACs and the listener?

 

[seanheis]

I'm still really interested in hearing the details of that controlled comparison test that revealed audible differences between modern DACs.

I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. BTW, I never said or implied that more expensive sounds better. An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males. Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.

 

[sonitus mirus]

What DACs were compared? Which did you and your friends prefer? What was the source?

 

[bfreedma]

I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. BTW, I never said or implied that more expensive sounds better. An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males. Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.

The reason people are asking for more detail is that your results would, if supportable, be the first time evidence has been presented that under controlled testing conditions, properly operating solid state amps and/or DACS could be differentiated with statistical significance.

The lack of supporting evidence in regards to how the tests were conducted, the number of trials, specifics about the % of correct responses per test, etc, makes it difficult to validate the claims. Your subsequent post above suggests that a large number of subjects were tested - why not post the details?

Don’t take the questioning personally, but this claim has been made a number of times yet the supporting evidence never materializes.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic.
[2] An interesting observation during the tests was that female friends tended to score a bit higher than males.
[3] Also, the lowest scorers were techie engineering types...I have a few friends that are borderline asbergers and their results were dismal.

1. That's strange! Aren't you one of those audiophiles I mentioned in my last post, who come to this thread (and others like it) to "grind their axe" of unquestionable belief, despite the decades of overwhelming reliable evidence which contradicts it? If you don't have "an axe to grind on this topic" then why post assertions so contrary to the reliable evidence here in the sound science forum and if you do have an axe to grind (which seems obvious), then you've "decided to stop responding" because of people like yourself?!

2. That observation is expected in some listening tests. On average, age related high frequency hearing loss is less for women than for men.

3. This observation is completely contrary to expectations though. In all the published scientific and controlled studies I'm aware of, where the interests/professions of the participants are included, sound engineers and others with trained hearing always perform better than audiophiles and general members of the public. Maybe you weren't referring to sound engineers but "engineering types" in fields unrelated to music/sound?

G

 

[bigshot]

I decided to stop responding as so many seem to have an axe to grind on this topic.

I kind of suspected that was coming. In the future, it might be a good idea not to stretch the truth to make your point. I know it's just an internet forum and we are all relatively anonymous, but someone might just ask you for details that you aren't prepared to provide. If it was just a subjective impression, say that and move on. Don't try to make it better by saying it was a controlled test when it wasn't. Lying and then claiming victory when you're being forced to retreat doesn't really convince anyone. You'll want to avoid having to do that in the future.

 

[seanheis]

Hi guys. This thread is a firing squad. Insulting someone is not a good way to get your questions answered or to promote sharing. I treat people online the same way that I do offline and I respond to others in the same fashion. I'm unsubscribing to this thread as the overall attitudes and expectation bias' are counterproductive to having a meaningful discussion.

 

[bigshot]

You already said you weren't going to answer our questions because you think we won't be fair with you. Why would you expect fairness from us when you won't be fair with us?

It's already been explained to you by Gregorio. The reason we are interested in hearing about the controls on your test is because your results go against every controlled test we've ever heard of, and it doesn't follow any scientific principle. If what you say is true, you have a very exceptional thing going on. We would love to hear about it and we will be polite. But if you're going to cop an attitude and write us off before you even start, it doesn't instill much confidence in us about the validity of your claims. We have people who come into Sound Science all the time and make exceptional claims, refuse to back them up, and then march off in a huff. It seems you fit that pattern.

We would love to be proved wrong. We can learn from that. Marching about and making claims that can't and won't be backed up is just a waste of time. If you're going to do that, we politely point you towards the door.

NEXT!

 

[bfreedma]

Hi guys. This thread is a firing squad. Insulting someone is not a good way to get your questions answered or to promote sharing. I treat people online the same way that I do offline and I respond to others in the same fashion. I'm unsubscribing to this thread as the overall attitudes and expectation bias' are counterproductive to having a meaningful discussion.

Kind of saw that coming...

Frankly, I though my request for additional information was non-confrontational - if we were discussing this in person, I would have asked the same questions using the same verbiage. This is the Science based subforum of head-fi. Reports of Bigfoot or flying pigs are going to be met with requests for supporting evidence.