Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:01:57 GMT
Perhaps somebody in the U.K.could organise a test using Frans's guidelines, for listening to unmodified Indeed/ Bravo varieties, and the various versions of Frans hybrid designs ? Let's take the "knowing" out of the equation! Some members might even save themselves a few hundred dollars if this was done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:20:36 GMT
So you claim distortion so high it can be SEEN on an oscilloscope and a bandwidth of 14kHz (-0.5dB) cannot be distinguished from an amp with much less distortion (below 0.1%) and a bandwidth not limited in the audible range (20kHz) in a blind test ? I am willing to bet a small fortune a nulling test will reveal HUGE differences, that are considered more than audible even by my friendly evil twin. What surprised me that in the beginning those that bought these amps were praising it and didn't even notice it. Even today these unmodded amps get high appraisal from goldeneared people. In an AB test I am pretty sure I can pick them out b.t.w. but admit to being very sensitive to distortion or small deviations in fidelity. You certainly have a point there. However, when comparing 2 otherwise similar files (similar content/waveform) in a null test or any other non-sighted and well performed test would be more difficult to prove in a court of law (unless you were the presiding judge ). Apples and eggs I would say... pears do not even qualify as they are 'too close'. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:27:19 GMT
You are the one that keeps making the statements about taking away the " knowing". What better way to put it to the test ? We both know that the later designs measure far better, and I would bet that your recent designs sound much better in a normal relaxed listening environment, but can people reliably pick the differences using your test methodology ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:38:18 GMT
The latest G2 and G3 are better (frequency range and distortion wise) than the cheaper and older versions but because of substantial differences in the output resistance could (very likely) be picked out in BT with certain HP's.
How they compare subjectively in relaxed circumstances is another matter though as sight and subconscious bias play a role as well. Regardless if we think we aren't sensitive to that.
On the other hand if those additions (sight and knowing) ADD to the sonic experience and create a better sense of fidelity why not enjoy that benefit ? real or not... who gives a ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:41:32 GMT
YOU !
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 10:08:26 GMT
Seeing is a problem. It distracts from hearing at the very least. I don't think that requires any proof. You miss my point - I'm not saying that it's not a biasing factor, I'm asking how important a biasing factor it is compared to all the other biasing factors that exist - monetary, emotional, psychological? I was hoping that someone could point me to some scientific study that showed it was the most important biasing factor & I would be happy that indeed blind tests are eliminating the most important bias. Otherwise we are just blindly ( ;D) following convention without any foundation for our testing. It's the equivalent of accepting flawed or unproven measurements as the basis for a decision. Remember the reason for doing competent designed, scientifically rigorous DBT tests is to attempt to remove these other biases. Why would this be necessary if other biases were not important factors in influencing the outcome! I just want to know where blindness comes in the ranking of importance of biasing factors
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 10:28:04 GMT
DBT are very costly and not needed IF you are serious about the test. Oh but that is the point - they are needed. The reason for competently designed, scientifically rigorous DBTs is to remove the biases that we are not even concious of. For you to claim that DBTs are not needed is very indicative to me that you are a victim to your otehr biases that you either are unaware of or choose to ignore. So to me & I would expect those requiring some level of scientific assurance, your informal tests are no better than anecdotal evidence (not that I find anything wrong with anecdotal evidence once you take a view & judgement on the potential bias of those reporting the anecdotal results - psychological factors such as - do they have a point to prove, is there a profit in it for them (psychological or monetary), have they invested a lot of energy into defending a particular viewpoint, etc). So you are both denying the need for DBTs & failing to give any links to scientific studies which show the importance of the blind bias. Yet you are effectively saying that your informal, possibly flawed, blind tests are of more value then anecdotal evidence. Can you tell me why? To me this is the equivalent of using a measurement device that you refuse to prove works & expect us to accept the results? The reason laboratories use scientific measurement devices is that the results can be verified to be of a certain standard! The reason competently designed DBTs are used in science is to eliminate as many biases as possible & to establish results under formally controlled environments.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 10:50:12 GMT
I have to agree with Alex, Why not subject your devices (I don't know what ones Alex is talking about) to a DBT test? It would give some anecdotal evidence about whether blind tests actually suppress the identification of differences that are otherwise easily sensed?
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 1, 2012 11:09:38 GMT
Not entirely. It's just that I don't think you can get a definitive answer any more than you can to the fundamental questions of sound differences. You have to eliminate every possible distraction, else you start accumulating doubts. An analogy for you -- what's the main difference in a criminal trial between reasonable doubt and no doubt (or virtually no doubt)? -- money. The investigative budget is always limited.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 12:25:46 GMT
But Dale, if you are going to drop sightedness & then say that this makes the test better than anecdotal evidence (which is the claim) then you have to produce some evidence for the claim. Otherwise we are still in anecdotal evidence, which is fine but let's not try to elevate it to anything else without some evidence.
My point is you can't make claims that just removing sightedness is removing the major bias we are subjected to in these tests without showing evidence that it is the major bias.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 1, 2012 13:22:04 GMT
But Dale, if you are going to drop sightedness & then say that this makes the test better than anecdotal evidence (which is the claim) then you have to produce some evidence for the claim. Otherwise we are still in anecdotal evidence, which is fine but let's not try to elevate it to anything else without some evidence. My point is you can't make claims that just removing sightedness is removing the major bias we are subjected to in these tests without showing evidence that it is the major bias. I make no such claim. The very existence of a distracting factor is evidence that it has to be considered. My analogy about money applies even to considering this factor -- i.e. how much money (time, resources etc.) would you want to spend investigating whether to remove that factor or not? And if you don't, can you be sure it won't taint your results? That's my question, which is really more of a nagging kind of question than a statement of certainty. What would be the harm in ignoring that factor, and what would be the harm in removing it? I don't know exactly, but I would like to know.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 17:08:21 GMT
Dale, we are probably very close in our positions then?
My posts were intended to do two things: - firstly to stop people from always citing DBT as the gold standard for evaluation - without some rigour behind them they are no more useful than anecdotal. I gather as much info as I can when looking into a product & anecdotal evidence is just as valuable particularly when large numbers of individuals in different countries with different systems come to the same general conclusions (once I have evaluated the types of anecdotal evidence) For instance, if the evidence is giving details about what the person heard rather than platitudes, I pay more attention. I, in fact, believe that this sort of evidence is actually of more value than DBTs. - I also wanted people to realise that they are only eliminating one set of biases - there are others - a lot of which they will not be aware. Is sighted knowledge the major bias? That's the questions I posed. There possibly are only qualified answers to this but it does bear thinking about rather than assuming that DBT is "IT"
The devil is in the details both in carrying out these listening tests & in carrying out measurements - the detail of what is done, how it is done, what the underlying premises are, etc are all of importance. Just citing DBT or measurements as the final arbiter is as blinkered as ignoring them in your evaluation
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 1, 2012 20:15:47 GMT
I welcome any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, since we do after all have a shortage of information on this topic. It's just that one thing though - the rigour, the discipline - it requires a lot of effort even before we get to finessing the testers and testees and making sure everyone is happy. Perhaps, like those "meets" that many of the 'headphone' sites organize with their young tribes of savages carrying their miniature amps and skateboards, those who wish to advance this digital investigation should plan way ahead and find a neutral location to host the event. The probable downside is (amongst other things) the gear. If the main amps feeding the test loudspeakers and/or headphones do not have sufficient qualities of resolution to satisfy the major players, it would add to the controversy rather than lessen it. I don't think whoever shows up would have a problem finding satisfactory test CD's, DVD's, SACD's, media players, and even a download link for networked files. And loudspeakers wouldn't have to be too large, headphones also are small. But the amps and interconnects are critical. I don't have personal knowledge of this, but I hear suggestions that some of the differences in lossless tracks may actually escape detection with lesser amps and associated gear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 21:11:13 GMT
DBT = BT where the one that takes the test AND the one performing the test BOTH do NOT know what is what (the D of Double). BT, if the test subject cannot see WHAT is being tested nor told anything about it takes out any monetary, emotional, psychological, or whatever bias there can be (because one does not know) all at once so it is completely irrelevant to ask how important each of those factors 'weigh'. They simply are taken out of the equation all at once.
Like I said if you demand proof, just read my evil twin's articles and links, visit Hydrogen or buy some relevant AES papers...
To test a subject while NOT giving any clues (gear and tester stand behind a curtian or in another room) is 'DBT' enough.
I probably have biases I am not aware of but to become aware of them they need to be explained to me by someone that knows what they are. So if you can point me towards those biases, that would invalidate a BT, please do so.
I do NOT defend DBT as the best test at all. As stated BT is good enough IF performed well, but Blind is one of my conditions to conduct a 'proper' test just like other conditions are needed to make a test meaningful depending on WHAT is tested.
DBT is needed in pharmaceutical tests for instance where the tester can have ethic or personal/financial reasons to rig the test.
The reason for taking the knowing (= sighted) out of the test may not be relevant to YOU but is at least ONE of the factors that can easily be eliminated. And guess what.. IF the knowing part is taken out, the magical powers of claimers suddenly appear NOT to be present anymore or cannot be proven in any way unless the differences are so huge, and already very measurable, that they are recognisable. So that by itself is evidence enough it IS a factor that SHOULD be taken out if possible.
My amp design (I don't sell nor have any financial gain) is up for review (just not for Uzmininu) so everyone that can perform a blind test is very welcome to try. I just hope it is done correctly. If it is found to be equally good as a competitor it indicates people cannot even hear measurable differences (which I am convinced of). No need to send it to NwAvGuy for a review though.
I know some other devices, amps and files that can be tested as well at the same time.
We've been down this road before and I know there is simply a wide gap between 'audio religion' which cannot be resolved.
You prefer test methods that I find flawed. I prefer my test methods you find flawed.
Since my main test demands are.. take out the knowing and do enough tests for statistical relevance which you find not needed at all it seems a waste of time, typing and usage of internet bandwidth and space to continue this discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 21:16:03 GMT
Now there's an idea !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 21:31:53 GMT
NOOOOOOO please don't, it has a tube/valve for Gods sake.. you old tease.
It measures like crap compared to the almighty O2 (a few measurements are already given). NwAvGuy will only measure it to prove his point. I would like to see a well performed BT between those 2 amps done by the evil twin though (no need to DBT)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 21:54:36 GMT
NOOOOOOO please don't, it has a tube/valve for Gods sake.. you old tease. It measures like crap compared to the almighty O2 (a few measurements are already given). NwAvGuy will only measure it to prove his point. I would like to see a well performed BT between those 2 amps done by the evil twin though (no need to DBT) I would actually prefer to see a few members do extended listening comparisons between the Evil Twin's creation and Frans CH.Amp. I wouldn't be surprised if the 02 came off 2nd best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 21:59:42 GMT
Only if they used headphones that sound best driven from 100 Ohm In the 0 Ohm setting they will be indiscrenable in a BT. How they will fare in a sighted subjective test depends on a lot more factors.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 22:02:20 GMT
DBT = BT where the one that takes the test AND the one performing the test BOTH do NOT know what is what. BT, if the test subject cannot see WHAT is being tested nor told anything about it takes out any monetary, emotional, psychological, or whatever bias there can be (because one does not know) all at once so it is completely irrelevant to ask how important each of those factors 'weigh'. They simply are taken out of the equation all at once. Really, that's all of the biases you can think of that might influence the outcome?Let me give you a real anecdotal example of something that could be important - the "I" here is not me but a well known audio designer & manufacturer Is it? So a one participant test is rigorous enough for you to then conclude what? To have some idea of your biases requires simple psychology & a tendency towards some level of self awareness. Asking others to point out your biases is not really useful So by proper you mean what? You make no mention of experimenter's bias or expectation bias so I presume these are another two biases that you are unaware of or discount? yet I would argue that these trump BT every time & would be considered of paramount importance And what about audio testers personal reasons (or financial ) to rig the test or does this only apply in pharma? I never said it wasn't relevant to me - I use it all the time, I just wanted to ask those who insist on it as of more value than sighted evidence how they arrive at the conviction that just removing sightedness is enough to raise it above "anecdotal" evidence? As I said before, I have no problem with anecdotal evidence but others, like you, do & constantly demand that blind tests are provided as some "proof" to back up anecdotal evidence. very circular argument there, Frans & my quoted example above shows that in fact the identification of gross differences can in fact be suppressed with biases. A using the old "audio religion" denigration, I see well guess what I find your church of measurements just as fanatically evangelical - the difference is you have self-appointed high-priests who interpret the holy book of measurements for the congregation & also want to save their souls form the evildoers that say trust your ears, hmmmmm! Tell me which is the religion! See this is the problem, you settle for a simplistic & flawed idea of what is rigorous & yet accuse everybody else of not being rigorous when they present evidence which is no more, no less trustworthy than what you present. That's where I have the issue - it reminds me of the catholic priests that preached piety from the pulpit while fondling the altar boy (& worse)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 22:35:12 GMT
Like I said.. You have your religion, I have mine. They are not compatible nor reconcilable. a pity though you cannot say what is actually wrong with 'taking out the knowing part' if possible, and how that cannot be benificial to a test. To summarize: Taking out the 'knowing part' in a test is flawed & simplistic and reminds you of catholic priests fondling alter boys... Ah well ... I count my blessings not having these associations myself.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 22:45:09 GMT
Like I said.. You have your religion, I have mine. They are not compatible nor reconcilable. a pity though you cannot say what is actually wrong with 'taking out the knowing part' if possible, and how that cannot be benificial to a test. The problem in short: Taking out the 'knowing part' in a test is flawed & simplistic and reminds you of catholic priests fondling alter boys... Ah well ... Frans, The usual mis-statements now begin to emanate from you. As usual, instead of trying to discuss the points you try hit & run tactics of simplistic mis-statement of what I said. If you want to boil it down to a on-liner - I'm saying stop being so simplistic & blinkered in your requirements for the proof form others. If you can live up to the standards of proof that you demand from others, I would have more respect for your position, otherwise I find it hypocritical - much like the hypocrisy of the catholic church (seeing as you brought religion into it). So, one way to prove your veracity would be to submit your devices for DB tests. It would prove that DBTs can show differences between devices & would prove your point that the BLIND part of the testing is crucial! Edit: I see Alex already requested this in post 50 but you dodged it - so why not do a competent designed DBT or maybe BT with your devices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 22:59:27 GMT
John,
Unlike you I do not sell devices. The devices I have (or design) can be put up for (D)BT anytime to those who want or desire to as well as being judged subjectively.
also... still a pity you cannot say what is actually wrong with 'taking out the knowing part' if possible, and how that cannot be benificial to a test.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 23:23:07 GMT
John, Unlike you I do not sell devices. The devices I have (or design) can be put up for (D)BT anytime to those who want or desire to as well as being judged subjectively. Frans, ohhh, playing the commercial card now (the religion card backfired ). So why don't you stand over your claims & get your devices tested. These devices are sold to the public, right? I presume the buying public should be protected from being foolish with their money & buying one of your devices unless it can't be proven that it is of benefit to them? Or are anecdotal reviews & reports suitable in this case? I never said that there was anything wrong with taking out the sighted bias - there you go again mis-stating what I said - I said it may not be the most important bias at play & you need to deal with the more important ones first. A bit of rigour in your thinking & tests is called for, Frans & is what I'm asking.
|
|
|
Post by dalethorn on May 1, 2012 23:28:19 GMT
I would actually prefer to see a few members do extended listening comparisons between the Evil Twin's creation and Frans CH.Amp. I wouldn't be surprised if the 02 came off 2nd best. So which O2 version do we use? Mine sounds good, but then, freeway traffic sounds good to me.
|
|
jkeny
Been here a while!
Posts: 463
|
Post by jkeny on May 1, 2012 23:29:52 GMT
I would actually prefer to see a few members do extended listening comparisons between the Evil Twin's creation and Frans CH.Amp. I wouldn't be surprised if the 02 came off 2nd best. So which O2 version do we use? Mine sounds good, but then, freeway traffic sounds good to me. You're a perfect participant, so
|
|