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?!
Sorting out evidence-based from faith-based
- Thread starter Ciunas Audio
- Start date
- Status
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Firstly, Max, read my comments about ABX that I have posted not so long ago.
Secondly, what is your great interest in why I started this thread - it's been useful for many people including you so just be happy with that. I find this question to be trolling & just another way to start an argument
maxflinn
pfm Member
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?
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Max, you would be better telling us the analysis of the XFi & why 1 loopback pass is audible through it. Your mantra has always been about transparency & quoted Winer's 4 qualifiers for transparency yet this result contradicts both you & Winer - unless of course, you can explain the result.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Max,
You're painting yourself into a weird corner. Please re-read my previous posts.
Whaleblue
Southbound
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.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Hmmm, maybe I'll step back so and let yourself and John explain everything to us.
Looking forward to it.
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Ah, very good, Vital - I like your open-mindedness, it's refreshing
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Your best contribution Max would be your analysis of the XFi's loopback results & transparency. We all might learn something?
Oh, & please stop trying to seed arguments & then blaming people for arguing
darrenyeats
pfm Member
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 don't show it. This is a point Julf and Adamdea have made time and again here.
Whaleblue
Southbound
Anything other than open-mindedness amongst consumers with no vested interest strikes me as bizarre.
I guess I owe an apology to the many I've challenged on their sighted results, but I hope I was generally polite enough to have offended very few.
With that said, I still value the blind test approach, but will now just see it as one tool in the box.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Ian, amps wouldn't be on my agenda anyway, and DACs?
At the risk of annoying the only person who seems to be still behaving friendly towards me - what has made you want to re-evaluate them?
From where I'm standing, having seen you positively identify very small differences, in your system, using ABX, you should be even more sure that you didn't miss any differences when you tested DACs, in your system, using ABX.
I really can't grasp why you seem to be drawing another conclusion.
I think you'll need to ABX the Vibe again, and work from there. You've already proven you've got the golden ears, so....
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Absolutely, and a great tool too.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Darren, I think we're each using a different interpretation of 'show/n'.
That's all.
tonerei
pfm Member
+1 if that works for you Ian and you are confident of the result that is all that matters.
AndrewM
pfm Member
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 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.
maxflinn
pfm Member
+ 1000.11.000.11
Thanks for having the balls to say that having seen what can happen when minds are spoken
AndrewM
pfm Member
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.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
1. That rarely happens.
2. Proper ABX testing of most equipment is really difficult, impractical usually. And for personal decisions i.e. one listener, listening fatigue is conceivably a real factor.
I agree with your general outlook but, in the real world, some things end up unproven whether we like it or not.
A practical approach: someone helps you out and flips the equipment back and forth a few times whilst you listen blind. Then you can put your sighted impressions into perspective - if there's any chance of you doing this then I recommend taking it.
tonerei
pfm Member
Andrew if it concerns you so much why don't you go and do the blind test on those products and as Darrenyeats advised take the hit on all the hassle doing it 'properly' One obvious thing that needs to be constantly restated as it is ignored or forgotten the main champions of 'proper' DBT x whatever just don't impose that on themselves. You would except such believers to be doing this stuff all the time.
- Status