darrenyeats
pfm Member
Yes, and nothing here has SHOWN anything in EITHER direction.
Something has happened, and you think it shows something. But does it?!
Something has happened, and you think it shows something. But does it?!
I'd like to know what the non-ABX believer that started this thread had in mind then, because as far as I can see it's only confirmed the usefulness of ABX testing, which is kind of contradictory, is it not? Unless I'm missing something.
Define 'shown'?Yes, and nothing here as SHOWN it.
Something has happened, and you think it shows something. But it doesn't!
Max,Define 'shown'?
It's shown me that differences I couldn't hear when testing in one way could be heard when testing another way. Ian too.
Should we disregard this, and if so, why?
Darren, both Ian and I missed the differences when listening sighted but spotted them when ABXing.
Max,
You're painting yourself into a weird corner. Please re-read my previous posts.
Max, out of interest has this experience changed your mind enough for you to want to try "better" DACs and amps?
I know my imminent classified for a Tom Evans Vibe has been quashed. To explain further, my experience with DACs to date had been "all the same" in all sighted listening (but now under significant review!), whereas every time I took the Vibe out of the system something went missing - even though when I wired it up such as to allow source to Vibe direct, or source via AV processor to Vibe, and tried quick sighted AB I could hear no difference.
This is why this thread and the one that spawned it - the "Silly" thread - have been very useful for me, and I hope you might benefit similarly.
Hmmm, maybe I'll step back so and let yourself and John explain everything to us.
Looking forward to it.
I think you're missing the fact everything heard in sighted listening is counted as differences by those who believe in them, even if you personally don't count them that way. Once you see it this way, you'll see you yourself are the arch-evangelist for saying sighted listening throws up "more differences".Hmmm, maybe I'll step back so and let yourself and John explain everything to us.
Looking forward to it.
Ah, very good, Vital - I like your open-mindedness, it's refreshing
Max, out of interest has this experience changed your mind enough for you to want to try "better" DACs and amps?
I know my imminent classified for a Tom Evans Vibe has been quashed. To explain further, my experience with DACs to date had been "all the same" in all sighted listening (but now under significant review!), whereas every time I took the Vibe out of the system something went missing - even though when I wired it up such as to allow source to Vibe direct, or source via AV processor to Vibe, and tried quick sighted AB I could hear no difference.
This is why this thread and the one that spawned it - the "Silly" thread - have been very useful for me, and I hope you might benefit similarly.
Absolutely, and a great tool too.With that said, I still value the blind test approach, but will now just see it as one tool in the box.
I think you're missing the fact everything heard in sighted listening is counted as differences by those who believe in them, even if you personally don't count them that way. Once you see it this way, you'll see you yourself are the arch-evangelist for saying sighted listening throws up "more differences".
I admit, the difficulty is the inherent gap between what each camp views as a bona fide difference.
But mainly, my point is that even if you end up being right, one or two experiences doesn't show it. This is a point Julf and Adamdea have made time and again here.
Absolutely, and a great tool too.
This thread has probably reached its sell by date by now, but I'd simply observe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if anyone (particularly in the case of anyone selling something) asserts absolutely that A sounds better/different than B, it behoves them to be able to offer credible and repeatable evidence that this is the case.
I myself believe that ABX testing works and done properly is the best evidence.
I am less convinced by the long term listening "method". It seems to me to be a useful cop-out for those seeking to excuse a null result from ABX testing. It doesn't exclude sighted bias, and I notice those who espouse it, often also claim that the difference to them of whatever change has been made is immediately obvious to them (night and day, even the wife heard it in another room etc etc) which if the case should make differentiating between the two in a standard blind ABX test a doddle for them.
I know my imminent classified for a Tom Evans Vibe has been quashed. To explain further, my experience with DACs to date had been "all the same" in all sighted listening (but now under significant review!), whereas every time I took the Vibe out of the system something went missing - even though when I wired it up such as to allow source to Vibe direct, or source via AV processor to Vibe, and tried quick sighted AB I could hear no difference.
This is why this thread and the one that spawned it - the "Silly" thread - have been very useful for me, and I hope you might benefit similarly.
1. That rarely happens.but if anyone (particularly in the case of anyone selling something) asserts absolutely that A sounds better/different than B, it behoves them to be able to offer credible and repeatable evidence that this is the case.
I'm certainly not going to argue that one phono stage cant sound better than another. But I'd be more convinced by the efficacy of this sort of test if you could show that you could reliably distinguish using a blind test even using much longer samples - a bit of bind to do I know, but if the difference is clear, then it should be possible to devise a blind test that confirms it somehow.