 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.211.66.153
In Reply to: RE: The Big GOTCHA that folks seem to ignore with ABX, etc. posted by Jon Risch on October 21, 2023 at 21:00:28
You're assuming that something should be audible or has been proven to be (how?). But if double blind testing shows something assumed to be audible is inaudible what is at fault? The assumption or the test?
Follow Ups:
See:
https://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/79/791994.html
Jon Risch
It's quite possible that one set of listeners would not any difference in a DBT/ABX, whilst a different set of listeners DO pick up the deltas.
DBT/ABX can help sort out some macro deltas, but IMHO, is useless for more critical listening. The test may not show any deltas in one listening environment, but does show deltas in a different environment.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
You are imposing unnecessary conditions to come up with these problems.
> > > It's quite possible that one set of listeners would not any difference in a DBT/ABX, whilst a different set of listeners DO pick up the deltas.> > >
This is only a useful test when done with listeners who claim to hear differences under sighted conditions. Differences that are being questioned as to their veracity. There is nothing about a properly designed ABX DBT that would cause *these* listeners to lose their hearing acuity when doing an ABX DBT. So "the set" of listeners you are hypothetically imposing on the test should not even be tested.
> > > DBT/ABX can help sort out some macro deltas, but IMHO, is useless for more critical listening.> > >
How does ABX impede critical listening? It doesn't. There is no kind of unique "critical listening" that can be done sighted but not done in an ABX DBT. There are no limitations to ABX listening. In an ABX DBT the person taking the test knows what A is, knows what B is and can compare them as much as they like sighted to establish what the differences are before trying to determine whether X is A or B. How could this possibly in any way prevent any kind of critical listening?
> > > The test may not show any deltas in one listening environment, but does show deltas in a different environment.> > >
Again this is an arbitrary and unnecessary condition imposed on the test. If there is a questionable claim of audible differences the ABX test should be done under the conditions which the alleged audible differences were heard. No reason to impose some other listening environment.
You don't like it because it happens to be valid. The listening room IS perhaps the single largest variable in a listening session. Take two identical system components setup, put them in different listening environments, and one will have completely different results. That's the nature of physics.
Everyone's hearing IS different. Again, that's physics. On any given day, the hearing could be impacted by a number of variables, not the least of which a cold/flu, which often causes fluid in the sinus, thus impacting the hearing.
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but it will not change people's real world experience. The best way to judge playback is with one's own setup in one's listening environment. Nothing will change that.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
> > > You don't like it because it happens to be valid.> > >
No, it's not valid at all. It is a total red herring.
> > > The listening room IS perhaps the single largest variable in a listening session.> > >
Only if you introduce it as a variable. I'll try to walk you through this one more time. *IF* someone claims to hear a difference and that claim is challenged we can test *THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM* using an ABX DBT in EXACTLY the same environment, system, source material and listeners where the original claim of an audible difference was made. There is NO REASON to introduce any added variables to test any specific claim of an audible difference.
> > > Take two identical system components setup, put them in different listening environments, and one will have completely different results. That's the nature of physics.> > >
And what does that have to do with ABX DBT? That's true under sighted conditions. Why would you try to introduce this variable when you can simply test the claim without changing any of the conditions under which the alleged difference was heard to begin with?
> > > Everyone's hearing IS different. Again, that's physics. On any given day, the hearing could be impacted by a number of variables, not the least of which a cold/flu, which often causes fluid in the sinus, thus impacting the hearing.> > >
Again with a bunch of excuses. None of the above has ANYTHING to do with ABX. If you have acold or the flu don't do the test! How is that not obvious. You don't have to change anything to do an ABX DBT! You don't have to change listeners, you don't have to get a cold or the flu or introduce ANY OTHER VARIABLES! Just do an ABX DBT under the same EXACT conditions under which the alleged difference was heard. Period. End of story.
> > > You can argue until you are blue in the face, but it will not change people's real world experience. The best way to judge playback is with one's own setup in one's listening environment. Nothing will change that.> > >
GREAT!!! Don't change anything!!! Just do an ABX DBT in one's own set up and listening environment!!! That's what I said in the first place. No reason to add arbitrary variables.
...subjectivists have no interest in dealing with you in good faith. The problem with your ABX framework is that it becomes a logical cul-de-sac when applied to intellectually dishonest people who are concerned it may destroy their dogma. Rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the heavy lifting, they prefer to take refuge in excuse-laden circular discussions.
As you've noted, if a listener purports to hear a distinct audible difference between two components in a sighted evaluation, then it should be easy to hear said difference unsighted, in the same listening environment. If the result can't be duplicated (blind) then the listener was mistaken.
Yeah. You definitely have a point. I just like to hold out hope and continue to offer the other side of the story for those audiophiles who may not know much about how we perceive and remember sound. I do think the fact that how we actually perceive and remember sound is both unobvious and counter intuitive and that contributes a great deal to the mythologies that are so pervasive in high end audio.
Anyone claims they are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and can leap tall buildings in a single bound are laughed at for their confusion between *obvious* reality and comic book fantasy. Audiophile claims of being able to reliably discern small differences in sound under sighted conditions with substantial time gaps between samples is in fact every bit as much of a disconnect between reality and fantasy. It just isn't as obvious that it is just as absurd. I think *that* is a major contributor to the anti-scientific beliefs of many audiophiles and the thing that continually needs to be addressed.
Unfortunately past a certain point the emotional, financial and time investment create a big ego based barrier in learning about and accepting the basic realities of the human auditory system.
ABX is not the be all/end all some claim it to be. Set up an ABX test with different listening environments, get different results. Not hard to sort this out. Change speakers with a given set of electronic equipment, get different observations. Again, not hard.
The real dogma is with the over the top opinions of the hard core objective crowd. They ignore any variable they disagree with, and berate anyone who disagrees with them No better than the Climate Change religious nut jobs. Not every audiophile is a hard core subjective or objective zealot. Many see the benefits of ABX/DBT, but know better from experience that the results may not be exactly the same in their own setup. It may be close enough, or may vary. Speaker /room interaction is HUGE, and seems to be ignored by the zealots. To believe otherwise is to deny science itself. Science ALWAYS question results.
ABX testing is good as far as it goes, but it's not the be all/end all the zealots claim it to be. Too many variables their religion choose to ignore.
Oh well, This will never be solved. Carry on and enjoy the music.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
Reply to regmac: This is one reason why I rarely get involved in these types of 'discussions' (more like arguments). What's the point? One would think it's a high school debate class!: Take a position, defend it to the death, and endeavor to poke holes in the opposing view. There is zero interest in learning or having a productive discussion. Freo-1's reply to your post is 'case in point'.Reply to Freo-1:
"ABX is not the be all/end all some claim it to be. Set up an ABX test with different listening environments, get different results."
You're stringing two different statements together, and attempting to validate the first by stating the second. I don't know of anyone who disagrees that changing more than one variable will result in different results. However, if the test is set up well, and there is a large enough number of subjects and a large enough number of exposures to make the test statistically valid, the results from both environments will be similar.
I should note here that qualifying the test subjects is essential when a particular skill set is relevant to the test. As an illustration, it makes no sense to randomly pick six individuals off the street and put them into a test group with another six highly qualified musicians or mixing engineers, and expect to get meaningful results. It also matters whether or not the test subjects are already familiar with the type of difference being tested.
Next:
"Change speakers with a given set of electronic equipment, get different observations."
This is another example of what you wrote earlier in the paragraph - changing a second variable (the speakers) will yield different results. Of course it will! Nobody disputes that. But, as long as the test is well-designed and executed, the results will be statistically similar and valid. THAT is the important point. Again, you are trying to invalidate a good test methodology by incorrectly insinuating that introducing a second variable invalidates the methodology. It does not.
Next:
"The real dogma is with the over the top opinions of the hard core objective crowd. They ignore any variable they disagree with, and berate anyone who disagrees with them No better than the Climate Change religious nut jobs. Not every audiophile is a hard core subjective or objective zealot. Many see the benefits of ABX/DBT, but know better from experience that the results may not be exactly the same in their own setup. It may be close enough, or may vary. Speaker /room interaction is HUGE, and seems to be ignored by the zealots. To believe otherwise is to deny science itself."
Read what you wrote. In this paragraph, you berate the "hard core objective crowd", while at the same time you are accusing 'them' of doing exactly what you are doing! Even your choice of words says it: "hard core", "crowd", "zealots", "deny science", "dogma", "BS", "be all/end all", "their religion".
"...berate anyone who disagrees with them..."
As you are doing here.
I don't know what your (or Analog Scott's) background is. Mine, both academically and professionally, is in music, recording, sound reinforcement and room acoustics. I've read more AES and ASA papers than I can remember. The bottom line is that both ABX and DBT methodologies are sound, given well-designed and well-executed tests. Problems creep in when they are not.
Having said all that, I'm not so sure that the 'X' part of ABX is necessary or even helpful. It can be mentally taxing enough to simply identify a difference between 'A' versus 'B', without also having to identify whether 'X' is 'A' or 'B'. Rather, a simple "same" or "different" response could be adequate, with samples presented in pairs, where the samples might be the same or might be one of each 'A' and 'B'.
Edit: I should add that the idea of performing an ABX test in the room where the difference is alleged to have been heard, is unnecessary, and even detrimental to drawing a meaningful conclusion. Such an approach would severely limit the number of test subjects, samples, and equipment, and would be impractical to administer on a meaningful scale. Rather, an acoustically desirable space with known good electrical service would ensure more meaningful results.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
Edits: 10/24/23
"Having said all that, I'm not so sure that the 'X' part of ABX is necessary or even helpful. It can be mentally taxing enough to simply identify a difference between 'A' versus 'B', without also having to identify whether 'X' is 'A' or 'B'. Rather, a simple "same" or "different" response could be adequate, with samples presented in pairs, where the samples might be the same or might be one of each 'A' and 'B'."
I think the advantage of ABX from an audiophile perspective is the free access to A and B as known quantities and references. I guess a little practice helps with the mental taxation. I have a very simple approach. I quick switch between A and B until I can find a shift in the sound. Once I lock in on that shift I apply it to X. Which essentially is the same thing as the A/B test you are suggesting but with double the reference.
Ironically for all the complaints often levelled against test tones I find that test tones are by FAR an easier source signal for identifying differences. The last ABX tests I did personally were with one of my tube simulation DSPs. I was really shocked at just how much distortion I had to add to the signal to get a subtle change to the sound. So I was curious as to what the thresholds of audibility were. Using music I was really struggling to identify upwards of 20% even order harmonic distortion. It was really hard and my results barely suggested an audible difference. With a 300 hz test tone I could easily hear the distortion much further down. Likewise I have a much much easier time identifying spectral shifts using pink noise than any music.
"Using music I was really struggling to identify upwards of 20% even order harmonic distortion."
That's interesting. What happens with 7th or 9th?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The tube simulator DSP I was testing doesn't isolate distortion like that. The "triode" distortion is heavy on 2nd order but also adds other harmonics at lower levels. and the Pentode was heavy on 3rd order. The Pentode was easier to detect at lower levels than the Triode. So I would suspect if I could isolate 7th it would be even easier to detect. With a 500 hz test tone what would the the 7th harmonic be? 7kHz? or there abouts? I would suspect you'd be able to hear that at -70 to -80 db if it's just the single tone. I am guessing 9th order would be beyond my hearing range
3500Hz and it only takes a tiny amount to ruin the sound. As you noted it takes a lot of low order even HD before it sounds like distortion but the smallest amount of upper ordered odd and it's game over.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"With a 500 hz test tone what would the the 7th harmonic be? 7kHz? or there abouts?"
3500 Hz.
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
In that case I would bet it could be heard at -80 db or there abouts
...." and the Pentode was heavy on 3rd order. " Heavy yes, tetrodes were even worse as I recall and that's why they invented the pentode.
many years ago I heard for myself that distortions were clearly audible betwixt the 2 types (2nd, 3rd) and I was not using an online "tube simulator", just plain old empiricism and the ears. There is another guy here on AA that uses the misunderstanding of ASR and the 'benign' effects of 3rd, and I don't know why it spread - I don't pay any attention to ASR btw.
Anyway, have a nice day and carry on with convincing others who refuse to be convinced
I was trying to point out that neither pure subjective nor pure objective is 100 percent right. Whilst I agree that ABX/DBT testing can be useful, the results really don't mean a lot to end user audiophiles. May be more helpful to engineers who work with audio on a regular basis. They tend to know how to listen.This is well stated: " Edit: I should add that the idea of performing an ABX test in the room where the difference is alleged to have been heard, is unnecessary, and even detrimental to drawing a meaningful conclusion. Such an approach would severely limit the number of test subjects, samples, and equipment, and would be impractical to administer on a meaningful scale. Rather, an acoustically desirable space with known good electrical service would ensure more meaningful results."
My rant was based somewhat on frustration. My bad. I should have known better than to fall into this trap. Will remember this for future reference.
Still believe that for the end user audiophile, the only thing that matters is how gear sounds in their system in their environment. The gear continues to evolve to the point that with some equipment, not sure how relevant a DBT/ABX test actually is. For example, how in the world would you test deltas between a stand alone DAC and the DAC integrated into say a Devialet Expert Pro with speakers supported by Speaker Active Matching support for the speakers? Seems impossible.
My background is with Submarine Combat Systems, which included working on Sensor Performance Prediction tools for Submarine Sonar systems. I know enough about sound to be dangerous. :-)
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
Edits: 10/24/23
"For example, how in the world would you test deltas between a stand alone DAC and the DAC integrated into say a Devialet Expert Pro with speakers supported by Speaker Active Matching support for the speakers? Seems impossible."
That certainly would be challenging. But it's an unnecessary challenge. We can test most ADC/DAC combos against a simple side by side bypass for any audibility. I have done this several times. None of the ACD/DACs were audibly distinguishable. That is transparency incarnate. Unless one is looking for euphonic colorations from their DAC it seems to me the game is over.
The response is overlooking two issues: 1) The DAC/Magic wire setup cannot be separated. It would have to be evaluated as a unit, so the power amp would be evaluated as well. What is being compared then? 2) The SAM would be part of the evaluation process, as it's applied as part of the overall signal process. Impossible to separate out. As more integrated solutions come to market, comparison testing becomes more difficult.
Let's not forget about output power. What happens when the volume is turned up a few db? Are the results the same? IMHO, objective testing needs to take this into account.
Agree most DAC's sound much the same, which makes it hard to tell apart. The Chord DACS do sound slightly different. If I wanted to evaluate DAC's would use headphones vs speakers. More likely to hear deltas with headphones.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
> > > The response is overlooking two issues: 1) The DAC/Magic wire setup cannot be separated. It would have to be evaluated as a unit, so the power amp would be evaluated as well. What is being compared then?> > >
I believe I addressed that issue when I asserted that I see no need to compare DACs when we have numerous DACs that are transparent.
> > > 2) The SAM would be part of the evaluation process, as it's applied as part of the overall signal process. Impossible to separate out. As more integrated solutions come to market, comparison testing becomes more difficult.> > >
True. But given the plethora of transparent DACs this simply should not be an issue anymore. Seems to me the bigger issue with "all in one" solutions is how well they allow us to make choices with things that do matter. But that would be a subject for a different thread.
> > > Let's not forget about output power. What happens when the volume is turned up a few db? Are the results the same? IMHO, objective testing needs to take this into account.> > >
Output power of a DAC?
> > > Agree most DAC's sound much the same, which makes it hard to tell apart. The Chord DACS do sound slightly different. If I wanted to evaluate DAC's would use headphones vs speakers. More likely to hear deltas with headphones.> > >
If the Chord DACs sound slightly different then they are slightly colored and one has to decide if they like that coloration. Personally I prefer to add my colorations using DSP which is easier to control and completely removable if I choose to do so.
As for all in one solutions I think it's a complicated question because there are many different possibilities that can play out as one makes changes in their system. I think one has to figure out where they hang their hat and what it takes to build the best proverbial hat rack around it.
Integrating new technologies into existing systems is an interesting and sometimes complex proposition. I am grappling with that right now as I am looking to add the Trinnov waveform technology to my system that already uses the BACCH4Mac SP and the digital crossover built into the software for my specific speakers. It's an interesting proposition to combine the two and continue to use additional DSPs to tailor the sound. I haven't looked at "all in one solutions." I suspect they would present some big problems with integrating things like the BACCH SP, other DSPs and the Trinnov and two separate crossover networks.
In all of this I feel relieved in knowing I don't have to worry about the accuracy of any of the three ADCs/DACs or two DSP processors that I expect to be using.
You missed what I was trying to get at regarding turning up the volume up a few db. Let me attempt to be just a bit more clear :-)
In real world listening, the volume level can be and often is adjusted during listening. What I have found is that some systems tend to "fall apart" when the volume is raised. I'm not talking about ear splitting levels either. Take any symphony with large dynamic contrasts, conduct the ABX/DBT at THOSE levels that get close to live, and voila, it becomes more likely that some deltas will occur. So, what is causing the delta? It's not easy to sort that out. The gear being evaluated needs to be considered as entire system. I do think ABX/DBT can be useful for engineers looking to evaluate their designs, but as far as end user comparisons go, do not think they are all that helpful.
I read this thread in total. A lot of disagreement, some good observations, and some food for thought. The more I read about all the issues brought up here, the more I'm convinced that the integrated solutions such as those offered by the Devialet Expert Pro series makes a lot of sense for many. Everything is already included in one or two boxes for stereo, minimal cables required, built in DSP for speaker bass management for supported speakers. One would have to test the ABX/DBT as an entire system for any meaningful results. Going forward, as more all in one solutions come to market, some with built in DSP, comparing and evaluation gets a lot more tricky.
Quick note on Chord DACs: They are not coloured. They have better filtering over off the shelf DAC's, which improves time/domain and transient response.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
> > > You missed what I was trying to get at regarding turning up the volume up a few db. Let me attempt to be just a bit more clear :-)
In real world listening, the volume level can be and often is adjusted during listening. What I have found is that some systems tend to "fall apart" when the volume is raised. I'm not talking about ear splitting levels either. Take any symphony with large dynamic contrasts, conduct the ABX/DBT at THOSE levels that get close to live, and voila, it becomes more likely that some deltas will occur.> > >
Certainly with more SPLs more details can be heard all else being equal. But as for falling apart at higher SPLs that's going to be a function of the speakers distorting, the room being overloaded, or the amp clipping. The DAC output will not change.
> > > So, what is causing the delta? It's not easy to sort that out.> > >
It's usually pretty easy to sort out actually.
> > > The gear being evaluated needs to be considered as entire system.> > >
That is not so simple. For instance if you have a transparent DAC it will always be transparent. We don't need to consider anything else. But I would agree that speakers and rooms have to be considered as a system. Also that amps have to be sufficient in power to drive the speakers. Those things do have to be considered as systems.
> > > I do think ABX/DBT can be useful for engineers looking to evaluate their designs, but as far as end user comparisons go, do not think they are all that helpful.> > >
ABX is a very good tool for determining if a perceived difference is a result of a difference in the sound or a flaw in the auditioning. That is pretty much it's only utility. As an end user I found that very useful in settling questions on cable sound, DAC sound, amplifier sound, power cord sound and audibility of various tweaks. If one is interested in that and wants to know the answer objectively ABX DBTs are a great way to find out.
> > > I read this thread in total. A lot of disagreement, some good observations, and some food for thought. The more I read about all the issues brought up here, the more I'm convinced that the integrated solutions such as those offered by the Devialet Expert Pro series makes a lot of sense for many. Everything is already included in one or two boxes for stereo, minimal cables required, built in DSP for speaker bass management for supported speakers.> > >
I have no doubt it's a great product and works really well for a lot of audiophiles.
> > > One would have to test the ABX/DBT as an entire system for any meaningful results. Going forward, as more all in one solutions come to market, some with built in DSP, comparing and evaluation gets a lot more tricky.> > >
The trick will be evaluating the DSP. For me it's easy since all my DSPs are bypassed with a flip of a switch (virtual switch) As important as blind protocols are the most important aspect of any audition is time synchronization and quick switching.
> > > Quick note on Chord DACs: They are not coloured. They have better filtering over off the shelf DAC's, which improves time/domain and transient response.> > >
If they are not colored then they should sound no different than any other audibly transparent DAC. Audible transparency has only one character. The same as the input. You can't have transparency and differences in sound by definition.
It's the advanced filtering. That's why so many headphone setups employ them. Headphones are easier to pick up the deltas between the Chord and the off the shelf DAC's. Granted, it's not a huge delta, but a delta it is nonetheless. I've nothing further to add regarding the Chord DACs.
One setup where ABX/DBT would be useful is with Active Speakers. Since the speakers and amp are always the same, one would be testing the input electronics. That makes sense to me.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
"off the shelf DAC' is pretty vague.
The DACs in my RME Babyface Pro interface, RME UCX II Fireface interface and the M2TECH Joplin are utterly audibly transparent. As were the DACs in my old Tascam digital recorder and Essence HDACC II-4K.
That's 5 out 5 tested. I doubt I was just getting lucky. Whether or not that kind of transparency in modern DACs is universal I can not say. But I feel confident in saying it's not particularly extraordinary or all that hard to achieve. The Essence was a $600.00 DAC. IMO DAC transparency shouldn't be any kind of a hurdle.
I've owned the RME ADI-2. Nice DAC, BUT, the Chord Hugo series just sound better. Instead of 256 taps, the Chord has thousands of taps to process the incoming data stream. The results are better overall resolution, which is audible, especially when listening to headphones.
Would recommend you watch one of Rob Watts videos on You Tube to explain what's involved.
" Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you"
Satchel Paige
"I've owned the RME ADI-2. Nice DAC, BUT, the Chord Hugo series just sound better."
Did you draw this conclusion under blind level matched conditions with a result that demonstrates statistical significance?
"Take any symphony with large dynamic contrasts, conduct the ABX/DBT at THOSE levels that get close to live, and voila, it becomes more likely that some deltas will occur."
Can you cite any references for making this claim?
*********
We are inclusive and diverse, but dissent will not be tolerated.
> > > ABX is not the be all/end all some claim it to be.> > >
No one is claiming it's any sort of end all be all. It is a specific type of bias controlled test designed to test for audible differences. No one is claiming otherwise.
> > > Set up an ABX test with different listening environments, get different results. Not hard to sort this out.> > >
It's not hard to sort that out. Just don't do that. Do the test in the same exact environment in which the difference was allegedly heard. Not hard to sort out at all
> > > Change speakers with a given set of electronic equipment, get different observations. Again, not hard.> > >
Seriously? Speakers sound different therefore ABX DBTs are not valid? Every variable you try to add the the equation to discredit ABX DBTs apply to sighted auditions. "Change speakers with a given set of electronic equipment, get different observations *under sighted conditions*. Again, not hard.
> > > The real dogma is with the over the top opinions of the hard core objective crowd. They ignore any variable they disagree with, and berate anyone who disagrees with them No better than the Climate Change religious nut jobs.> > >
You are literally calling science dogma. It's the opposite of dogma. It's very simple. The truth lies in the evidence whether you like what the evidence tells us or not.
> > > Not every audiophile is a hard core subjective or objective zealot. Many see the benefits of ABX/DBT, but know better from experience that the results may not be exactly the same in their own setup.> > >
That's why you DON'T introduce variables when testing a specific claim. It's that simple.
> > > It may be close enough, or may vary. Speaker /room interaction is HUGE, and seems to be ignored by the zealots.> > >
No one is ignoring anything. Test the claim under the same conditions it was made. It's that simple.
Ironically though, as you say, speaker/room interaction is HUGE and yet you have the same audiophiles who are insistent on ignoring the realities of the lack of audible differences between cables, modern SS amps, power cords, power conditioners etc etc spending thousands of dollars, in some cases north of 6 figures on this nonsense while utterly ignoring the room acoustics of their set up.
> > > To believe otherwise is to deny science itself. Science ALWAYS question results.> > >
Science 101, don't introduce unnecessary variables to any test designed to test a hypothesis. Such as these cables make an audible difference. Indeed science always questions results. And science has long ago questioned and answered result under non blind, non synchronized non quick switching non level matched comparisons. They give you very very very unreliable results. So much so that science considers those results to be pure junk. To believe otherwise is to deny science.
> > > ABX testing is good as far as it goes, but it's not the be all/end all the zealots claim it to be.> > >
Who are these zealots and where are they claiming it is the be all end all? Advocates of ABX DBTs here claim that it is a very good method to test the true audibility of unlikely assertions of audible differences. Nothing more nothing less.
> > > Too many variables their religion choose to ignore.> > >
Only reason to add variables is to find an excuse to deny the results. Objective reality doesn't care whether or not you like it. That's what sets science apart from religion, mythology and other belief systems that are utterly unreliable and subject to the whims and wishes of people who just want to believe something because they like the idea or can't accept the fact that they are actually human and subject to the same limitations and characteristics of human aural perception and aural memories as all other humans.
I can actually be somewhat sympathetic to audiophiles who simply are not aware of the nature of human aural perception and memory. It is not intuitive or obvious. But I have zero sympathy or respect for those audiophiles who put their egos in front of science because they don't like what science has clearly taught us about the nature of human aural perception and memory. It is exactly why J Gordon Holt said the following
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel."
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]