[Anomaly2]

Quote:

bull.  I will happily take any set of tests you care to devise.

Well, I did not devise them: dfkt did.  I was unable to hear a difference after taking those tests.  Am I correct in assuming that you too took those tests?  Was it very easy for you to hear a difference after taking those tests?  What, specifically, were your test results?  Since, as I have already mentioned before, Head-Fi forbids any discussion of double-blind listening tests here, let us continue this discussion over at hydrogenaudio.  In your post on that forum, please provide a link to this thread.
 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=f4d3ed5fc1f2717cab4fae92375b260f&showforum=40.

 

[estreeter]

I am at the mercy of your superior logic - clearly, dfkt's tests completely invalidate over 20 years of listening to a wide variety of portable audio sources. My only defence is that I am a music lover, not an audiophile - music lovers just listen to music, they dont listen to gear.

 

[Anomaly2]

 
Quote:

I am at the mercy of your superior logic - clearly, dfkt's tests completely invalidate over 20 years of listening to a wide variety of portable audio sources.
 
[size=11pt]Yes.[/size]
 
My only defence is that I am a music lover, not an audiophile - music lovers just listen to music, they dont listen to gear.
 
No.  Your only defence is placebo effect, confirmation bias, and post-purchase rationalization.  Because first you claimed that you will take any set of tests that I care to devise and now have completely backed away from your bogus claim; this is the problem with many individuals who claim to be able to hear the difference.
 
But when challenged to demonstrate their so-called superior ability to hear the difference, many of these same individuals back down: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf.   Anyway, your behaviour did not surprise me.  I had a very strong suspicion that you were going to break your promise.  All I had to do was to call your bluff.

 

 

[scompton]

 
Quote:

Quote:

bull.  I will happily take any set of tests you care to devise.

Well, I did not devise them: dfkt did.  I was unable to hear a difference after taking those tests.  Am I correct in assuming that you too took those tests?  Was it very easy for you to hear a difference after taking those tests?  What, specifically, were your test results?  Since, as I have already mentioned before, Head-Fi forbids any discussion of double-blind listening tests here, let us continue this discussion over at hydrogenaudio.  In your post on that forum, please provide a link to this thread.
 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=f4d3ed5fc1f2717cab4fae92375b260f&showforum=40.

Unless it's changed, discussion of double-blind tests are only forbidden in the cable forum.  There have been numerous threads on ABX tests.
 
Edit:  I'm curious about double bind tests for portable players.  Can you point me to the thread describing them?

 

[estreeter]

Hey, you won - I promise never to listen to music again. Ever.

 

[Anomaly2]

 
Quote:

Unless it's changed, discussion of double-blind tests are only forbidden in the cable forum.  There have been numerous threads on ABX tests.
 
I thought it was banned, because dfkt’s thread was moved to the Sound Science forum.
 
Edit:  I'm curious about double bind tests for portable players.  Can you point me to the thread describing them?
 
OK.  Moderators and administrators, please do not move this thread to the Sound Science forum.  I am just giving a link—not discussing double-blind listening tests.
 
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?s=6ba72b3fef329f8d600646ae187bb8c9&p=469501&postcount=34.

 

[scompton]

Thanks.  I reread the TOS and it doesn't say anything about DBT.  The name of the cable forum includes the DBT-free statement and there used to be a sticky in that forum stating it too.  I don't see stickies at all now.

 

[jaakked]

Quote:

links to tech info would also be appreciated! im trying to explain to someone why it sounds better but the only evidence i have are my ears! why are some players better than ipods?

I don't understand why your ears or their ears are not enough.Are you a salesperson?I personally like the sound from my cowon and iriver players better than my old ipods(or my wife's current ipod and ipad).I don't really care if my opinion is placebo or real.She likes her stuff just fine.I have no problem with that.Ears are your friends,use them!Devices sound better because sound is a subjective thing.Lots of smart people love their ipod.I could try to argue that because I have 20 years of professional experience in sound applications that I know better but who really cares?
 
That being said I am very particular about what I like for myself,even if there is no rational reason for this.Sometimes I rant about audio trends which I see as having nothing to do with sound quality but if someone really does like something I don't see a problem with that.If they are concerned about what to buy then they should listen and compare what their ears tell them.

 

[estreeter]

Prior to the release of the 6G Nano (Sept 2010), I was dismissive of a lot of the hype around the SQ on recent iterations of the iPhone/iTouch, Having owned an X for over 12 months alongside a 160GB Classic, I thought that a lot of folk were just happy to have something that sounded better than the Nano. Late last year, the buzz started around the Sept releases of the Shuffle (not so much, but it was a buzz nonetheless) and the new Nano (a bit more hysteria on this). Again, I dismissed it, having had the previous Nano for less than 24 hours before taking it back for a refund. Ipod EQ has never been my thing, and the 'flat' sound sig on that Nano was abysmal after the warmth and power of the X and the neutrality of the Classic.
 
For those who argue that its all about placebo, I will accept that there *is* a psychological component to the way we perceive the sound quality of a new DAP. In my case, I went in with low expectations and they were dramatically exceeded. I had read a review of the Nano some weeks before and it was accompanied by some unbelievable measurements (for a mass-market DAP) which the magazine claimed they had commissioned independently of Apple. I now have both the Nano and the Shuffle, and the former is a clear step up from the latter - this hasn't always been the case. I previously saw the Nano as a very cynical marketing effort from Apple, designed for teens who would pack it with the nastiest 128K downloads Limewire could find for them.
 
Having previously picked up various 'penny dreadfuls' in places like Bangkok and KL just to see if there is another Sansa Clip lurking out there somewhere, I completely reject the notion that these lumps of plastic and sand are basically all the same and that we have been duped into believing that there are major differences in sound from one to another. The worst of the breed just have no 'love' put into the sound signature - thin, brittle, anaemic : pick an adjective for something undesirable in audio and chances are that these guys have nailed it. Should Apple, Sony and others be charging such high premiums for their DAPs in the era of the all-in-one smartphone ? No, I dont think they should, but I'm very happy that they continue to put enough time and effort into their products to lift them well above the clones that adorn shopping centres all over SE Asia.
 
End of the day, I agree with Uncle Erik and others. You wouldnt try to build an expensive home rig around a throwaway consumer device, no matter how good it sounded, but I'm not prepared to write the DAP off just yet. If the OPs friends cant hear the difference from model 'A' to 'Z', it shouldnt be the catalyst for a religious war here - I couldnt tell you the difference between any two fashion labels and in some circles that would make me a complete barbarian. Perspectve, people, perspective.
 
estreeter

 

[Anomaly2]

 
Quote:

Ipod EQ has never been my thing, and the 'flat' sound sig on that Nano was abysmal after the warmth and power of the X and the neutrality of the Classic.
 
What is warmth and power?  A tiny bit of distortion and louder?  You dislike flat but like neutral?  Sounds like a contradiction.
 
For those who argue that its all about placebo, I will accept that there *is* a psychological component to the way we perceive the sound quality of a new DAP.
 
It is not as simple as that.  It is definitely not just the placebo effect.
 
First, we must limit ourselves to high-quality MP3 players—flat and adequate frequency response, high-enough signal-to-noise ratio, high-enough dynamic range, high-enough channel separation, low-enough total harmonic distortion, low-enough intermodulation distortion, etc.
 
Second, we must compare the MP3 players with all signal processing off—an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Third, we must take into account confirmation bias.  Some individuals, no matter how much evidence is presented to them, simply will not change their opinions.
 
Fourth, we must take into account post-purchase rationalization.  Some individuals, no matter how much evidence is presented to them, simply will not change their opinions.  If, for example, a $30 US MP3 player sounds about the same as a $790 MP3 player, an owner of that $790 MP3 player might always believe that it sounds better than that $30 MP3 player even if evidence is presented that shows that this is false.  Why?  Because to admit otherwise is to admit that he has been shafted.  Not everyone wants to publicly or privately admit that he has been shafted.
 
I previously saw the Nano as a very cynical marketing effort from Apple, designed for teens who would pack it with the nastiest 128K downloads Limewire could find for them.
 
A bit rate of c. 128 kbps might be OK.
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles#Portable:_background_noise_and_low_bitrate_requirement.2C_small_sizes.
 
The worst of the breed just have no 'love' put into the sound signature - thin, brittle, anaemic : pick an adjective for something undesirable in audio and chances are that these guys have nailed it.
 
What is thin?  Lacking in bass?  What is brittle?  What is anaemic? Please be as specific as possible.
 
If the OPs friends cant hear the difference from model 'A' to 'Z', it shouldnt be the catalyst for a religious war here - I couldnt tell you the difference between any two fashion labels and in some circles that would make me a complete barbarian.
 
It is not a religious war.  The original poster wanted a technical explanation and links to technical explanations.  The more technical, the better.  So far, after 738 views of this thread as this is written, no one has provided a technical explanation of why one high-quality MP3 player should sound better than any other high-quality MP3 player.  For the purposes of this thread, let us limit high quality to sound quality and not ease of use, features, battery life, size, etc.
 
Perspectve, people, perspective.
 
A technical explanation, people, a technical explanation.

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jaakked /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I don't understand why your ears or their ears are not enough.
 
Please re-read this thread.
 
I don't really care if my opinion is placebo or real.
 
Why?
 
Ears are your friends,use them!
 
Amen.
 
Devices sound better because sound is a subjective thing.
 
This is why placing coins on top of loudspeakers improves the sound quality.  This is why green ink on CDs improves the sound quality.  This is why placing a brick on top of one’s components improves the sound quality. Your statement can be used to justify all sorts of absurd myths.
 
That being said I am very particular about what I like for myself,even if there is no rational reason for this.
 
Please re-read this thread.
 
If they are concerned about what to buy then they should listen and compare what their ears tell them.
 
They should also be aware of the myths, arm themselves with knowledge, and know what the placebo effect is and how it affects hearing.

 

[estreeter]

anomaly2, can you give a technical explanation of why some folk prefer wine A over wine B ? Why some are passionate over a certain model Porsche (or Ford or Toyota etc) over similarly capable models from the same manufacturer (in some cases, *faster* models) ? Why some of us prefer cooler climes while others cannot abide the very thought of 'Winter' ? The people on this board are individuals - computers may have been designed to simulate certain aspects of our cognitive function, but they arent replacements for our emotional capacity. If you were talking about PCs and laptops, I would be 100% in agreement, with the possible exception of criteria like ergonomics and brand loyalty, but we arent talking about mere silicon when the end result reaches our ears, and thats something we will have to agree to disagree on.
 
As for purchase justification, by that logic I would never compare the X favourably to any of the cheaper DAPs I have owned, for fear of someone asking why I paid so much when I could have had a large chunk of what the X has to offer for a lot less money. I'm not going to dig through old threads to find examples where I have done exactly that, but they are out there, and it hasnt been a case of simply 'rolling' the X in favour of my new toy - I have recommended the Clip+ to countless newbies over more expensive options simply because I accept that this can be a silly waste of money for people who dont need everything a player like the X has to offer. I certainly didnt need the added expense of the headphones Sony felt the need to include in the astronomical price of their flagship player.
 
As far as being able to appreciate two contrasting players, one which I described as 'warm' and one as 'neutral', I'm afraid its that human thing again - by your canon, I cant like chocolate and vanilla ice-cream equally because that just doesnt compute. Your quest for a technical explanation of something that will ultimately be assessed by human ears just doesnt gel with me. Show me figures that prove climate change is going to see the end of humanity within a century and I wont argue with you, but try to quantify certain aspects of the listening experience and I'm afraid that you have entered one of the few areas where science just doesnt explain everything, at least not to me. If that makes me a Luddite, then so be it, but I'm the only one wearing the headphones when I sit down to listen to music and I'd rather be a happy Luddite than an unhappy technician.

 

[4DThinker]

I'll throw out a theory for discussion: 
- Some of us listen better than others. 
- Secondly, we can be trained (or learn) to listen better.
- Lastly, some of us have genetically better listening capability/potential than others.
 
It helps us understand why some people doing A-B tests can't hear a difference between any two players.  (uneducated listeners?)
It helps us understand why some people get better (over time) at identifying  the "better" sounding players from the "worse" sounding ones.
I'll add that listening is not taught in school, nor are there listening competitions to improve the skill.  I suggest that for the same reason some people stand out as taste testers there will be some people that stand out as listeners (device testers).
Sadly, it means that our listening experiences are always personal, and there is no real value in sharing them as a way to help another justify the purchase of one device over another.  Your experience will vary, and no matter which device you pick there is no guarantee your satisfaction in listening to it will match mine.
 
Any Audiologists in this group?   It should be obvious from both simple and complex frequency tests that people vary in their ability to hear.  Then consider that the brain gets to interpret/filter/make-sense-of the sounds it hears.  We know humans can selectively filter out (their perception of) some sounds. We know old (middle?) age reduces high frequency sensitivity. And so on.
 
4D

 

[Anomaly2]

 
Quote:

anomaly2, can you give a technical explanation of why some folk prefer wine A over wine B ? Why some are passionate over a certain model Porsche (or Ford or Toyota etc) over similarly capable models from the same manufacturer (in some cases, *faster* models) ? Why some of us prefer cooler climes while others cannot abide the very thought of 'Winter' ?
 
[size=11pt]This thread is about whether anyone can give a technical explanation for preference of the sound quality of one high-quality MP3 player over another high-quality MP3 player—not wines, cars, or climates.[/size]
 
The people on this board are individuals - computers may have been designed to simulate certain aspects of our cognitive function, but they arent replacements for our emotional capacity.
 
What does emotion have to do with a technical explanation for sound-quality differences?
 
If you were talking about PCs and laptops, I would be 100% in agreement, with the possible exception of criteria like ergonomics and brand loyalty, but we arent talking about mere silicon when the end result reaches our ears, and thats something we will have to agree to disagree on.
 
Evaluating sound quality can also be objective.
 
As far as being able to appreciate two contrasting players, one which I described as 'warm' and one as 'neutral', I'm afraid its that human thing again - by your canon, I cant like chocolate and vanilla ice-cream equally because that just doesnt compute.
 
But surely there must be a reason for you to describe one MP3 player as having a warm sound and another MP3 player as having a neutral sound.  Or do you disagree?  If MP3 player A has a warm sound and MP3 player B has a neutral sound, then there must be a technical explanation for why this is so.  Or do you disagree?
 
Your quest for a technical explanation of something that will ultimately be assessed by human ears just doesnt gel with me.
 
But it is ultimately assessed by human ears.  Did you even bother reading the information in that dfkt link and taking those tests?
 
Show me figures that prove climate change is going to see the end of humanity within a century and I wont argue with you, but try to quantify certain aspects of the listening experience and I'm afraid that you have entered one of the few areas where science just doesnt explain everything, at least not to me.
 
Science does not explain everything, but it does explain a lot—especially with wires, amplifiers, and CD players.  Perhaps also with MP3 players.  I cannot give you the links to the evidence, because I think the moderators and administrators will ban any discussions of double-blind listening tests here.  If a moderator or administrator says OK to the discussion of double-blind listening tests in all forums except the Cables forum, then I shall provide the evidence.
 
If that makes me a Luddite, then so be it, but I'm the only one wearing the headphones when I sit down to listen to music and I'd rather be a happy Luddite than an unhappy technician.
 
Are you perhaps suggesting that if I give you the evidence, your enjoyment of music will be diminished?

 
Quote:

I'll throw out a theory for discussion: 
- Some of us listen better than others. 
 
Only up to a point.  I would like to give links to the evidence, but will not.  Please see above for the explanation.
 
- Secondly, we can be trained (or learn) to listen better.
 
Yes.
 
It helps us understand why some people doing A-B tests can't hear a difference between any two players. 
 
Under certain conditions, no one has been able to hear a difference between wires, amplifiers, and CD players.   I would like to give links to the evidence, but will not.  Please see above for the explanation.
 
(uneducated listeners?)
 
No.  I would like to give links to the evidence, but will not.  Please see above for the explanation.
 
I suggest that for the same reason some people stand out as taste testers there will be some people that stand out as listeners (device testers).
 
Not for wires, amplifiers, or CD players.  I would like to give links to the evidence, but will not.  Please see above for the explanation.
 
Sadly, it means that our listening experiences are always personal, and there is no real value in sharing them as a way to help another justify the purchase of one device over another. 
 
No.  I would like to give links to the evidence, but will not.  Please see above for the explanation.

 

[estreeter]

My 'unhappy technician' comment refers to another variant of the 'unhappy audiophile', a wretched soul locked into an endless kit upgrade while lying awake at night wondering if his cables really do have .00001% oxygen content, or if its just a vendor claim and explains why he still hasnt found nirvana. I could spend my weekends enduring the monotony of ABX testing, or I could simply listen to the music (and movies/games) I enjoy. For those who are obsessed with knowing whether a Clip+ is really any different to a 6G Nano, I recommend that you take all the time you want with those ABX tests - happy to see your results - but it isnt my idea of time well spent.

 

[Anomaly2]

Quote:

I could spend my weekends enduring the monotony of ABX testing, or I could simply listen to the music (and movies/games) I enjoy.

It does not have to take a lot of time.  For night-and-day differences, it should require only a few seconds for each trial.  For example, with LAME 3.98.4 at –V9, I would not be surprised if you got five out of five in less than two minutes.