DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
Irrespective of the actual findings as well...
Digital Source poll
- Thread starter Whaleblue
- Start date
- Status
Irrespective of the actual findings as well...
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
And irrespective of where they stand on the subjective/objective spectrum.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
You are incorrect there. I would expect to have difficulty in identifying different transports in a blind test apart from a couple of computer setups that sounded decidedly off.
We've facilitated more test/auditions of digital sources than most. I'm very much in favour of them, and always challenge someone whose opinions are second-hand. Equally, you have to keep open the possibility that you're out of whack - the best antidote to which is more research, and more listening.
The theoretical case for USB cables is currently much thinner than for transports. There's abundant data on how transports differ empirically; much less for digital interconnects. Ultimately, though, those differences may not matter - equally, something you've not measured might. The issue is: “how can you tell?” Worse, it's 'how can you tell whether you can tell?”
Normal listening involves expectation bias. Blind listening is not normal listening. Artificial measurements are usually invalidated by not being made in-room - ie, they don't correspond to what you are hearing. And when they are, the auditory and perceptive mechanism is just not the same as a microphone. Rapid switching is great for spotting step changes in level and pitch with steady tones, but almost useless for assessing time-domain differences in dynamically changing sources. If you talk to professional researchers about this - more Salford than Scalford - they will patiently explain to you why no simple, single method is good enough to provide anything remotely approximating 'proof'.
Hence my personal agnosticism.
Whatever opinion you hold after audition, via whatever listening method you find best boosts (not blunts) your acuity I have no issue with, as long as you don't try to enforce that view on anyone else. That would be silly.
The theoretical case for USB cables is currently much thinner than for transports. There's abundant data on how transports differ empirically; much less for digital interconnects. Ultimately, though, those differences may not matter - equally, something you've not measured might. The issue is: “how can you tell?” Worse, it's 'how can you tell whether you can tell?”
Normal listening involves expectation bias. Blind listening is not normal listening. Artificial measurements are usually invalidated by not being made in-room - ie, they don't correspond to what you are hearing. And when they are, the auditory and perceptive mechanism is just not the same as a microphone. Rapid switching is great for spotting step changes in level and pitch with steady tones, but almost useless for assessing time-domain differences in dynamically changing sources. If you talk to professional researchers about this - more Salford than Scalford - they will patiently explain to you why no simple, single method is good enough to provide anything remotely approximating 'proof'.
Hence my personal agnosticism.
Whatever opinion you hold after audition, via whatever listening method you find best boosts (not blunts) your acuity I have no issue with, as long as you don't try to enforce that view on anyone else. That would be silly.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Why take it personally? Some on the subjectivist side would argue, in the event of a 'no difference' outcome, that they were stressed, the time spent listening to each piece of music was too short, the room/speakers/something else was too poor to show up differences etc etc.
Some on the objectivist side, in the event of a 'definite difference' outcome, would argue that the test wasn't 'truly' blind, that equipment wasn't properly level-matched etc etc.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Personally I like testing blind, when practical, but I do it to put my own perceptions into perspective. I don't have any illusions (or delusions!) this will "prove" anything to anyone else. But it IS very useful and enlightening IMO.
Have you ever published any details of these tests you say you have facilitated, Item?
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Absolutely agree Darren.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Well, if I were one of those of us who were inclined to accept that there may be audible differences between transports and digital cables, I'd be asking whether or not it was something worth worrying about, seeing as the differences claimed by item & Co are, according to him, so minute as to be absolutely impossible to prove!
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
The poll is closed. I chose "CD player" for dedicated CD transport.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
I am using a Rega Apollo R as a transport into a Lakewest MDAC. The external DAC is a big upgrade over the one inside the player.
I wonder if giving performing a hysterDACtomy on the Apollo R might improve things further.
I'm literally not sure what you're saying.
We've sat on a number of auditions where the difference between transports seemed greater than the difference between DACs - others where the DAC, or even the USB cable/PSU, made a bigger impact than the computer. It depends on system specifics. However, to keep things in perspective, compared to differences between speakers & rooms, the source in toto is usually a minor player.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Mark, Merlin asked you....
Will you prove your theories to other Pink Fishers under test conditions? Yes or No?
You have not given him a yes or no reply.
Yet earlier in the thread you said....
You might blame the room, the DAC, the cables - anything but the transport - for that flat, grainy, 2D, soundstage-shrunk, edgy, brittle, piercing quality the computer may actually be responsible for.
So, are you saying that under controlled conditions, you don't think you could tell a 'flat, grainy, 2D, soundstage-shrunk, edgy, brittle, piercing' sound from the sound you'd get when using one of your most expensive transports?
Surely you could? And thus prove some of us wrong. But you appear not to want to? So the only logical conclusion is that you have hugely over-exagerated such differences, and should they be real at all, they are so minute as to be impossible to prove.
Hence my saying, even if you're open to the idea that differences may exist, why worry if they're so minute as to be impossible to prove.
Or, maybe they're not impossible to prove? So, why not prove them?
I've not said: only me, with my brilliant hearing, notices differences between transports. I have summarised a bunch of experience from auditionees. If you search, you'll find a rough consensus on what jitter and parasitic noise sound like - as I reported.
Do you ask an Audiolab dealer to prove in a blind test their amplifier is better than the Naim equivalent? The onus is on you to test both the equipment and your hearing, and/or whether differences are meaningful - or even exist - using whichever method best sharpens your acuity.
When I need to tease out the signature of a piece of equipment, I do not listen to it incognito in a group, in an unfamiliar system/room, or rapidly switched. I find that really unhelpful, only permitting gross distortions to be spotted. I'm also suspect I'm sharper when I'm enjoying it.
Crucially, whether I 'pass or fail' a test you contrive, it would tell you nothing about this question, only about my admittedly mediocre hearing. If we're looking to address the question, not the man (which would be a first!), we'd be looking to shortlist the best ears for the job. I could point you at a few of my professional customers who'd be better qualified, if you're interested . . .
Do you ask an Audiolab dealer to prove in a blind test their amplifier is better than the Naim equivalent? The onus is on you to test both the equipment and your hearing, and/or whether differences are meaningful - or even exist - using whichever method best sharpens your acuity.
When I need to tease out the signature of a piece of equipment, I do not listen to it incognito in a group, in an unfamiliar system/room, or rapidly switched. I find that really unhelpful, only permitting gross distortions to be spotted. I'm also suspect I'm sharper when I'm enjoying it.
Crucially, whether I 'pass or fail' a test you contrive, it would tell you nothing about this question, only about my admittedly mediocre hearing. If we're looking to address the question, not the man (which would be a first!), we'd be looking to shortlist the best ears for the job. I could point you at a few of my professional customers who'd be better qualified, if you're interested . . .
Did you mean to say that '...only therapy can offer any hope of a cure for such a desperate need to be a fêted guru the audio world. '?
- Status