advertisement


The best audio system on earth?

onlyconnect said:
I am trying to make sense of this statement. You have constructed a non-blind sound comparison which you claim was perfectly set up to demonstrate something, that you have not specified, and have also constructed imaginary people who are wasting time on "theoretical arguments" and have proved to your satisfaction that the imaginary people with the time-wasting arguments were wrong? Well done!
Click to expand...
Why did you say non-blind?
 
stevec67 said:
Speaker cables we know make a difference because they have a significant LCR, often by design as we know in the case of Naim and the Thiele network, and they are in the signal path. This is known science. However the talk here is of the mains cable to the server.
Click to expand...
These are known physics, not science. There is no comprehensive science ... as self-evidenced by measurists making faulty claims on "science", ironically. E.g., LCR is unquestionably not the whole set of variables in any lines, signal or power.
 
Fourlegs said:
About 15 seconds into the second version he looked at me and did an ‘oh, wow’ sort of thing and said the difference was the same as he might expect with different speakers or other significant kit change. His unprompted description of what he was hearing was exactly the same as what I was hearing.
Click to expand...
Such confirmed observations may (or may not) become investigations that themselves eventually conclude with a science. Meanwhile they are observed, which is the point of improving audio realism. They don't need to be formally agreed to be observed.

Excellent comment, Fourlegs. Measurists should consider the nature of the formalization of knowledge and not get their horses and carts reversed...
 
TheFlash said:
Why did you say non-blind?
Click to expand...
I’ve managed to stay away for ten pages, thereby avoiding sullying this thread (as I have done with many others) with discussing biases. But, this is one of my favourites and one of the lesser-known potentials for bias and one that I have seen in action. Pharma standard work was mentioned upthread, and in those, if anyone in the room knows (eg) what drug is being taken then the study is treated as not being blind (with only one possible exception I can think of).

The potential bias here is my favourite - dominant participant bias. If someone in the room is (eg), older, wiser, better-qualified, louder, owns the kit or has a specific interest in the outcome, subconsciously there is a tendency for participants to agree with them (if they have expressed an opinion) or to comment in a way that would (they might believe) please them.

That bias quadrupled my work in supervising the assessment of MRI images in studies as, even though our facility could have 4 Radiologists working at the same time (and we worked only at weekends), we could only have one at a time to stop this bias from happening. The Radiologists also signed contracts that specified that they could not talk with the others about the study.
 
hc25036 said:
I’ve managed to stay away for ten pages, thereby avoiding sullying this thread (as I have done with many others) with discussing biases. But, this is one of my favourites and one of the lesser-known potentials for bias and one that I have seen in action. Pharma standard work was mentioned upthread, and in those, if anyone in the room knows (eg) what drug is being taken then the study is treated as not being blind (with only one possible exception I can think of).

The potential bias here is my favourite - dominant participant bias. If someone in the room is (eg), older, wiser, better-qualified, louder, owns the kit or has a specific interest in the outcome, subconsciously there is a tendency for participants to agree with them (if they have expressed an opinion) or to comment in a way that would (they might believe) please them.
Click to expand...
I thought I was clear. There was no communication (verbal or non verbal) apart from saying ‘there are two options being played, do you hear a difference and if so what difference do you hear and which do you prefer’. Pretty simple really and as it turned out it was not a marginal difference according to my friend. No foot tapping from me, no eye contact, no me grinning inanely when I swopped over etc etc. No leading questions

Obviously it is accepted that it is all anecdotal but I partly wanted to share the experience to see how many people come out of the woodwork to say what we heard couldn’t happen, or we fooled ourselves.
 
Fourlegs said:
I did not tell my friend but the first time I used MinimServer on the server and MPD on the player. The second time I used LMS (Logitech Media Server) on the server and Squeezelite on the player.

About 15 seconds into the second version he looked at me and did an ‘oh, wow’ sort of thing and said the difference was the same as he might expect with different speakers or other significant kit change. His unprompted description of what he was hearing was exactly the same as what I was hearing.
Click to expand...
1) <Bangs head on table>
2) The reason this is not a blind test is not because it isn't blind but because it isn't a test. And confirmation bias is primarily an issue with experimental analysis- as here. Apart from those two points, what does the reasonable person conclude from a claim that two identical bitstreams sound as different as two pairs of speakers?
You prove too much
 
I notice that this thread is about the best audio system on earth, Presumably not the most high fidelity system, which refers to a Quad system defined by Mr Walker's 1950s classical music? His period HiFi shows were something else which I experienced back in the early 1970s. No fancy cables which in my experience just add dynamics and more treble.
 
Fourlegs said:
I thought I was clear. There was no communication (verbal or non verbal) apart from saying ‘there are two options being played, do you hear a difference and if so what difference do you hear and which do you prefer’. Pretty simple really and as it turned out it was not a marginal difference according to my friend. No foot tapping from me, no eye contact, no me grinning inanely when I swopped over etc etc. No leading questions

Obviously it is accepted that it is all anecdotal but I partly wanted to share the experience to see how many people come out of the woodwork to say what we heard couldn’t happen, or we fooled ourselves.
Click to expand...
I hope I wasn't insinuating that I believed it was fixed in any way and trhat your outcome wasn't valid. Not my intention which was - as I always try to do - to suggest what other factors could be at play. My experience would, however, take issue with a blank assertion that a "sighted" person was sure they had offered no non-verbal cues. As a species, we are remarkably sensitive to subconscious cues. Foot tapping and the like are the equivalent of a smack in the face with a wet fish in that world.
 
Somafunk said:
In that case i offer Genelec 8351b SAM active monitors set up with their GLM software and a streamer, probably a Cambridge Audio CXNxV2 or the new CX100 along with a subscription to Roon & Tidal.

Perfect :)
Click to expand...
I heard the Genelecs and they were impressive… not IMHO a worldbeater and I prefer my ATC SCM40A’s, but I could live with them!
I moved from Tidal to Qobuz a couple of years ago and have no regrets, catalogue keeps growing in size and variety. Have heard Roon but can’t see any advantage over Innuos Sense app for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top