Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
I said as much.
Thinking aloud: obj / sub / ABX cyclic arguments etc Part III
- Thread starter jcbrum
- Start date
- Status
I said as much.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
Difference ≠ audible difference?Nobody would use an AB or ABX test to find if differences exist between hi-fi.
Alan Brown
Registered LUser
I loved that site, thank you! I started a thread on Audiochews about the tests there, and to post results. Great fun.
Don't think your views are similar Stephen. Arthur supports Roberts view. In Roberts view an MDAC is audibly perfect, for it meets his (still unstated) transparency criteria. In Roberts view, if any DAC sounds different to an MDAC or Dacmagic it must be because it distorts. So if you accept this view, why would anyone pay money to get their MDAC 'improved' when, if they did hear a difference, it could only be because the upgrade added audible distortion?
I can understand why you got your MDAC upgraded. You don't believe Roberts line. You thought there was a chance it would sound better, you trusted JohnWs judgement, and you gave it a punt. But I can't understand how Arthur can both believe Roberts line (an MDAC is perfect) and yet send his MDAC away to be improved. He must've wanted some distortion added or to waste money. And I can't understand how Arthur can support Roberts view yet not do a blind or otherwise ABX trial.
cheers! Shows you how difficult it is to reliably remember a simple tune lasting a few seconds.
maxflinn
pfm Member
Re distortion, how would you define it in HiFi terms?
Tony I think you have possibly solved the problem to a degree. Just keep this thread running as a kind of perpetual thing, make it a sticky if necessary, and it may keep the attention of all those who want to perpetuate the cyclic debates regarding testing, trasnparency etc and thereby allow the rest of the threads to remain uncrapped!
It would appear you are a strategic visionary. Expect a call from the UN any moment to see what you can do to sort out the Middle East.
It would appear you are a strategic visionary. Expect a call from the UN any moment to see what you can do to sort out the Middle East.
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
Arthur is living with the uncertainty. You might like to read his glowing subjective review of the improvement he derived from JohnW's mods.The difference between him and me is that if I were unable to tell vanilla MDAC from Toy MDAC in an ABX, for me that would prove absolutely nothing other than I couldn't pass that particular test under those conditions. It is for this reason and also the fact that I can live with the uncertainty that I will NOT take part in any ABX testing of DACs.
For most HiFi equipment blind tests are just too damn hard to arrange. I can understand why most people don't bother with them. Blind testing something like flac against mp3 makes much more sense than blind testing...say...speakers or amplifiers or cables or sources. Well, sources are easy if they are already level matched.
Some people still do them tho, but it seems like only one test outcome is accepted by the objectivists, and the other always requires more testing ("there was something wrong in the test...") and the test and the tester is just bashed to oblivion. And the subjectivist's claim, when they get the wrong result is that it was not made with good enough equipment in good enough conditions or the most testers were half deaf.
Imo, proving things with blind testing in HiFi is just utterly useless.
Some people still do them tho, but it seems like only one test outcome is accepted by the objectivists, and the other always requires more testing ("there was something wrong in the test...") and the test and the tester is just bashed to oblivion. And the subjectivist's claim, when they get the wrong result is that it was not made with good enough equipment in good enough conditions or the most testers were half deaf.
Imo, proving things with blind testing in HiFi is just utterly useless.
Nobody would use an AB or ABX test to find if differences exist between hi-fi.
Thats doesn't change the fact that this style of test cannot be used to test whether two items that are different in some way, actually sound different.
The tests used need modifying in some way so they can be shown to be testing the equipment not the test subject.
Robert
Tapehead
I think it is quite funny.
Reading stuff posted on a hi-fi forum as sad is taking things a bit too seriously.
That's surely half the problem.
Robert
Tapehead
Use several subjects and look for patterns. That's how most group blind tests work.
Depends on what you are trying to determine and to what degree.
This is very true, many people happily live with a degree of uncertainty and if that's their personal choice then fine.
The only problem with this method comes when you try to establish standards or attempt to quantify progress.
Purely subjective assessment which resolutely refuses to allow controls is next to useless in this regard.
On a hifi forum, magazine, or even a company's product literature the aim is to impart information to others and possibly influence them, and without any attempt to establish verifiable references that influence is likely pushing in the wrong direction.
It is a shame you've set yourself against ABX. However I hope when you bring that shiny new MDAC down we can do both sighted and (simple) blind comparison against a dacmagic or Rega.
As usual, showing by demonstration will always trump speculation.
It is only sad in the way a classic science fiction film is when the war continues forever - long after the planet is empty. Joe - there must be an appropriate Star Trek episode.
Nic P
Robert
Tapehead
Ah yes
But this planet is well occupied, with a growing population if the member stats are accurate. It certainly seen just as busy as usual.
AndrewM
pfm Member
Increase the number of subjects until you have a statistically significant group - thus allowing for the idiosyncrasies of individual subjects.
Yes true, but the tests often quoted on this forum do not do that.
They usually ask , "which is different" "can you hear a difference" "can you identify A or B" or "which do you prefer".
Robert
Tapehead
....to a group.
This tells us nothing in the context of hi-fi related audio testing, other than human memory is weak and blind is better than sighted.
Make the test sighted, ie show the people taking the test the music waveforms as they listen, and they'll likely score 100%, making the test pointless.
Blind; it levels the field and removes bias, which is the whole point of a blind test!
On the question of memory, the point is well made.
Make the space between these sound excerpts even longer - as usual with standard sighted audio comparisons - and guess what? - it gets worse again.
- Status