Thinking aloud: obj / sub / ABX cyclic arguments etc Part III

[jcbrum]

We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap."

He compounded this by going on to remark that some of the earrings were "cheaper than an M&S prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long."

Today, Ratner's speech is still famous in the corporate world as an example of the value of branding and image over quality.

Source : WikiP

JC

 

[jcbrum]

Sorry Keith, an unfortunate juxtaposion of posts, - not intended to be a reflection on you.

JC

 

[Steven Toy]

Is it fair to say that you're suggesting that there's a very strong, collective subjective belief that the MDAC is potentially better in terms of resolution than most likely any DAC with a price tag of no greater than £10K, but it cannot be scientifically proven to be better in terms of resolution than any DAC with a price tag of up to £10K including one with a price tag of £200?

If you have to use words like "belief" you still don't understand my post. I think you may be stuck in the all-or-nothing trap. With the risks associated with trusting your senses come the rewards.

 

[maxflinn]

If you have to use words like "belief" you still don't understand my post. I think you may be stuck in the all-or-nothing trap. With the risks associated with trusting your senses come the rewards.

Could you replace belief with a more suitable word and then reply?

This is all getting very abstract.

 

[spanna]

I know what you mean.

Shortly after I bought my 1st streamer (Akurate DS) back in 2008, Linn fanfared a new type of "Brilliant" power supply, and offerred an upgrade for a few hundred pounds.

My atavistic vestigial audiophool gland kicked in, & I seriously considerd coughing up for this upgrade.

I would almost certainly have heard the advertised improvements. My hearing system is human just like everyone elses, after all.

Equally, I would almost certainly not be able to hear a bit of difference in a blind auditioning.

I didn't therefore bother with the "upgrade".

Chris

That just about sums up the consequences of an objectivists approach. Your blind faith in objectivism has sold you right down the Swannee. The Brilliant power supply is a considerable improvement to both the sound and the musicality (and yes, it's measurable). If you had just invested a bit of your time, you would have instantly heard the improvements. This is a perfect example of why objectivism is nothing more than a shortcut to mediocrity, and as we know, mediocrity is killing the industry.

 

[pure sound]

Sorry Keith, an unfortunate juxtaposion of posts, - not intended to be a reflection on you.

JC

Interesting. What is it meant to be a reflection on?

 

[Steven Toy]

Speaking only for myself, I only represent products that I 'believe' in, ie excellent innovative design, build quality, and guaranteed long term service and repair.
Keith.

As a customer demanding the very best in terms of sound quality, what would you recommend? The budget is up to £10,000 but I want to spend the bare minimum. I'm not terribly bothered how it looks nor am I bothered about reliability, brand cachet etc. If I was worried about reliability I'd buy ten and put 9 of them in storage.

10 x £200 DAC is more reliable and cheaper than 1 x £5000 DAC.

 

[Mescalito]

That just about sums up the consequences of an objectivists approach. Your blind faith in objectivism has sold you right down the Swannee. The Brilliant power supply is a considerable improvement to both the sound and the musicality (and yes, it's measurable). If you had just invested a bit of your time, you would have instantly heard the improvements. This is a perfect example of why objectivism is nothing more than a shortcut to mediocrity, and as we know, mediocrity is killing the industry.

I have since bought a Klimax DSM. This has the Brilliant PS.
Before I gave tha Akurate DS to my daughter I had plenty of opportunity to compare the 2 units side by side.

Absolutely indistinguishable. To the extent that I inadvertantly left the Akurate onstream and only noticed this about a week later when my daughter came to pick it up. I had been happily listening to the Akurate through the Kairn whilst thinking it was the Klimax.

And it is not mediocrity that is killing the industry. It is the industry that has chased a shrinking demopgraphic & on the whole refused to face up to the new reality and simply run out of time. Sound reproduction kit, whether in the home or on the move, is now no more than another commodity like a TV or a vacuum cleaner.

A pile of boxes cluttering up your living space that can be equalled or bettered by a decent set of headphones & your mobile phone is simply not seen as sensible any more.

As for your reference to "musicality", what the hell does that mean? Bits of kit are not musical instruments and they play absolutely NO part in the musical performance per se. They merely reproduce it as faithfully as possible.




Chris

 

[maxflinn]

Level matched tested blind its not that difficult to know which is the Dacmagic Plus and which is the MDAC, the MDAC has more low level resolution, it's easier to hear effects applied to recordings reverb tailing off etc, the DM + by comparison has a more diffuse lighter sound with less low end, it still has good resolution but presents it in a different way, after living with both dacs for a bit these differences become quite apparent and you either go for the character of one or the other.

I dont now own an MDAC by the way, but its definitely the most resolved standalone DAC i've tried if you discount the Lyngdorf TDAI which is a bit more than a DAC.

Now if you take the old £200 Dacmagic the one being talked about above and the new version DM+ i cant reliably guess which is which level matched, very different than the MDAC test, but traits of the old and new Dacmagics do become apparent over time.

The first time i tried a blind level matched test was a fair few years ago now, when i had a DPA dac and a Sansa clip MP3 player i couldn't tell the difference between these two at all, which was a surprise at the time.

Interesting that you could tell the MDAC from the Dacmagic. That is not something that I would have thought possible in a properly controlled, double blind ABX test.

 

[jcbrum]

Interesting. What is it meant to be a reflection on?

" an example of the value of branding and image over quality. "


Perhaps the conclusions of a 'subjective' assessment, compared to an 'objective' one ?

JC

 

[Steven Toy]

Interesting that you could tell the MDAC from the Dacmagic. That is not something that I would have thought possible in a properly controlled, double blind ABX test.

This will likely mess with your head but not being able to distinguish between a and b in a blind level matched does not prove that the two are sonically identical. It just fails to prove that they are audibly different.

 

[maxflinn]

This will likely mess with your head but not being able to distinguish between a and b in a blind level matched does not prove that the two are sonically identical. It just fails to prove that they are audibly different.

I agree completely

 

[jcbrum]

If no-one can hear the difference, how do you know it's there ? and does it matter ?

JC

 

[spxy]

My thoughts...

Other these and similar threads the term "Blind test" or "ABX tests" are being used as if they refer to a single testing defined regime.

Problem 1. there are any number of test that claim to be blind or ABX but they are not all the same or to the same standard.


It is also assumed that these tests have proved to be effective in determining that you can hear differences if they do exist.

I , and correct me if i am wrong, have yet to see the evidence that the types of test described can in fact be used to identify small differences that are known to exist, let alone smaller differences that many are uncertain about.

Problem 2. Can we show that a single test can be used to positively identify real differences.

 

[Paul R]

Amazing. Nice try.

The terms subjective and objective really are common-sense words. They are uncontroversial and universally applied with the same meaning in the fields and contexts being discussed here. You are the first two people I've ever come across contend something different.

So you can assume a context and then they mean whatever you choose them to mean? Very subjective.

Subjective relates to the mental state of the observer, the 'subject', objective relates to the physical qualities of the object. A properly controlled listening test is therefore objective.

Paul

 

[maxflinn]

Well you've got to put it into 'context', im sure in some systems (or listeners) the difference isn't apparent.
Im not really fussed if people say im delusional or shouldnt be able to hear the difference.

I not swayed by exception bias I'll just go for the cheapest of whatever works best in the context of my system, not long after getting the Dacmagic (first one) i got a Benchmark Dac i presumed it would be better than the Dacmagic but again i could really grasp the difference between the two, so the Benchmark was sold, same goes for the the EE Dac i had, not really that much difference between it and the Dacmagic, so that went too.

Sounds like you've realised that DACs don't really differ too much. I expect you'll be sticking with the MDAC for good?

 

[Steven Toy]

If I exhibit at Scalford next year I will not be hosting any level matched abx tests. Checking behaviours only serve to feed the anxiety and any reassurance is only short-lived. You have to learn to live with the uncertainty.

 

[Steven Toy]

Sounds like you've realised that DACs don't really differ too much. I expect you'll be sticking with the MDAC for good?

DACs don't differ much but the very subtle differentiators are extremely pervasive. The MDAC L3 over the CDQ is slight but the emotional impact derived from music replay due to the extra resolution is considerable.

This change, despite being subtle, is the best upgrade I've ever had in 15 years of being into hi-fi.

 

[maxflinn]

DACs don't differ much but the very subtle differentiators are extremely pervasive. The MDAC L3 over the CDQ is slight but the emotional impact derived from music replay due to the extra resolution is considerable.

This change, despite being subtle, is the best upgrade I've ever had in 15 years of being into hi-fi.

Good stuff. Nobody can argue with the fact that you're very happy with your purchase.

Some might question the performance claims, but that's irrelevant to you, once you're happy.

 

[Steven Toy]

Good stuff. Nobody can argue with the fact that you're very happy with your purchase.

Some might question the performance claims, but that's irrelevant to you, once you're happy.

Performance claims are often questioned (or rather, dismissed) by objectivists who don't bother reading what is written. They see a splurge of subjectivist claptrap, don't bother reading it, attach a "wild claim" label to it and simply refer to their script*. Subtle yet pervasive is hardly a performance claim but you'd know that if you'd read it and understood its implications.

*In a level-matched abx.....

Yesterday at AudioWorks I heard an a and b of a very thin flexible layer of peek (a type of almost indestructable plastic that looks like paper but doesn't tear) inserted between the platter and mat of a (modded) Linn LP12.

The a and b was not level-matched. One did sound slightly louder though but the less loud one was the better one. Dynamics are about contrast. The less loud bits not the louder bits were the differentiators.