Comparative Listening Tests

bonzo75 · Apr 22, 2017

audioguy said:
Totally agree. The bad news is that there are no less than a bazillion combinations of things you can do in Dirac that can affect what we hear. So for an OCD person, the process never seems to end.

In my well over 40 years in this audio [strike]addiction[/strike] hobby, absolutely nothing has come close to impacting what I hear more so than those two "components": passive and active room treatment - Dirac being the best of the active room treatment products I have used.

As much as I focus on 2 channel for a hobby, I think the datasat Auro 3d with dirac beats most systems I have heard, except the very top

microstrip · Apr 22, 2017

stehno said:
That sounds a little too deep. Isn't Microstrip really just describing in a round-about way a "newer" listener i.e. one who lacks seasoning, training, composure, etc.?

No, I am addressing systems, not listeners. Alex did the correct interpretation of my words.

audioguy · Apr 22, 2017

bonzo75 said:
As much as I focus on 2 channel for a hobby, I think the datasat Auro 3d with dirac beats most systems I have heard, except the very top

I also have the Datasat and totally agree (but I also like DSU) to take advantage of all of the speakers in my system. My guess is we are the only two on this forum that do such a thing.

bonzo75 · Apr 22, 2017

audioguy said:
I also have the Datasat and totally agree (but I also like DSU) to take advantage of all of the speakers in my system. My guess is we are the only two on this forum that do such a thing.

KAL Rubinson, fitzcarldo, edorr are all MCH fans. Also RBFC

microstrip · Apr 22, 2017

amirm said:
Simple exercise. Play a track on your system. Change nothing. Go and play it again and this time pay real attention. Does it sound the same? I bet it does not. I just tested myself and it absolutely sounds different alternate times. If you hear it the same every time you are not human!(...)

At some point in one's audiophile life, you need to determine how reliable your listening is. Come up with some test, any test, where the answer is 100% known and see if you arrive at it. I don't know how folks spend money not knowing, or wanting to know the validity of their opinion.

No, IMHO we do not need to determine how reliable our listening is, particularly if we are being suggested to test it by such argument - it sounds different all the time!

IMHO audiophiles should surely train to become better listeners - we have excellent articles and books on this subject, but should avoid ultra-simplified uncontrolled blind tests whose unique function is reducing their self-confidence to prepare them for an anti high-end brainwash.

An important aspect of training is that the type of training will influence your future preferences, usually people train to improve their capabilities of enjoying music in a defined way, but also for having success in building a system they appreciate.

I would love if the people who support such tests told us exactly what blind tests in typical high-end conditions they have carried in their audiophile life. Probably due to the complexity of such tests, I have never read a description of such test carried by a WBF member. All IMHO, YMMV.

microstrip · Apr 22, 2017

Al M. said:
(...) Musical tracks. I set the SPL meter on its 'max' reading, which becomes a steady number at some point. I agree, you can't go reliably by constantly varying numbers.

Are you saying you use a soundmeter with peak stretching capability and use this reading to set the levels? What is the resolution of the instrument? We should always use a stand mount for such purpose, just handling it can be a source of errors.

Rodney Gold · Apr 22, 2017

As to the OCD thing..well it depends on you how far you go .. I know folk who measure and set dirac to default target curve and then some that forever fiddle.. but the same can be said for anyone changing cables and boxes and stuff..they are as OCD as a digital fiddler , just cost them a lot more for a lot less.

Apart from the music .. the major fun in this hobby for me is to evolve your system and room and learn along the way .. Its not that I am unhappy with the sound .. I just want to try something different now and then
As an aside , I am changing my flat traps to 16" x 8ft asc clone type tube traps ..12 of them.. cost is under $2000 for all .. well worth the effort for me..hopefully

Not sure exactly what I'm looking for , I will know it when I hear it

audioguy · Apr 22, 2017

microstrip said:
I would love if the people who support such tests told us exactly what blind tests in typical high-end conditions they have carried in their audiophile life. Probably due to the complexity of such tests, I have never read a description of such test carried by a WBF member. All IMHO, YMMV.

I have done these kinds of tests multiple times: power cords; A2D converters; interconnects; speaker wire; pre-amps. The only one I "documented" was here: A blind test of a $25,000 surround processor (Datasat) against a $2500 surround processor. This may or may not meet "your" requirements for an acceptable test but it did for me and told me all I needed to know. And, as you said, YMMV.

In the case of the other tests, I simply used another person to swap products (or not swap them - his choice). If I could "easily" and "consistently" hear a difference AND if that difference was positive, then my requirements were satisfied. These tests always consisted of long term and short term listening sessions.

audioguy · Apr 22, 2017

microstrip said:
Are you saying you use a soundmeter with peak stretching capability and use this reading to set the levels? What is the resolution of the instrument? We should always use a stand mount for such purpose, just handling it can be a source of errors.

The MUCH better way is to use full frequency sweeps and some measuring tools like REW (or OmniMic or ....) and get the two sweeps to EXACTLY match. An SPL meter, no matter how accurate, is not close to ideal for setting exact levels - and without "exact", the test is meaningless.

microstrip · Apr 22, 2017

audioguy said:
The MUCH better way is to use full frequency sweeps and some measuring tools like REW (or OmniMic or ....) and get the two sweeps to EXACTLY match. An SPL meter, no matter how accurate, is not close to ideal for setting exact levels - and without "exact", the test is meaningless.

When using digital I always calibrate levels for listening evaluations electrically - just use a test tone at -40 dB - track 33 of HifNews test CD - and a RMS voltmeter. Much faster and expedite.

BTW, I have never had a signal cable that changed levels in my system and all the cases I know about had simple logical explanations - no voodoo.

DaveyF · Apr 22, 2017

amirm said:
Simple exercise. Play a track on your system. Change nothing. Go and play it again and this time pay real attention. Does it sound the same? I bet it does not. I just tested myself and it absolutely sounds different alternate times. If you hear it the same every time you are not human!

I have been through countless double blind tests where I "heard" a difference solid as day is bright, only to have the program tell me the two files were identical. Yet observation of difference was 100% real in my mind.

Expectation bias is not the biggest enemy. The biggest enemy is that we don't perceive audio the same all the time when it comes to detail, air, small differences, etc. It is this factor that convinces us that everything changes sound. Everything does not change sound. It is us, who is so easily convinced that audio changes when it absolutely does not in countless scenarios.

At some point in one's audiophile life, you need to determine how reliable your listening is. Come up with some test, any test, where the answer is 100% known and see if you arrive at it. I don't know how folks spend money not knowing, or wanting to know the validity of their opinion.

Amir, on the other hand, I have to question how many times listener's go into a particular gear change and hear nothing at all, simply because they have closed their mind...and their ears, to the possibility that some change could exist!!

Or, for that matter, are so "blinkered" that they do not even bother to listen at all to gear, instead assuming that the piece in question could not possibly make any difference and therefore it is not valid!! Hmmm, wonder where these guys reside, LOL.

stehno · Apr 22, 2017

jkeny said:
It's called perceptual blindness, Amir - when we focus it changes what we perceive. The other side of the coin is inattentional blindness or the inability to perceive something that is there because we are not aware of it's existence (we can't focus on it as we are unaware of it) - once we are aware of it, it becomes obvious & we wonder how we missed it. Training, anyone?

And before you get carried away with how you are much better trained than anyone here - this is more likely to blind you to what you are not trained to hear.

Auditory Perception is the end result of an analysis engine's (the brain) processing. We don't perceive everything that impinges on the ear - we use attention to direct focus to what's of interest to us. Just the same way as we don't perceive everything that is impinging on our eyes - in fact we have a very narrow point of focus (the fovea) & we don't perceive anything during saccades (the movement of the eye from one focal point to another)

Well said.

Perhaps like snowflakes, no two events are identifcal nor can they be perceived as identical. So the so-called expectation bias being our enemy also applies to every facet of life when concentrating or focusing.

One good example might be watching the same movie numerous times and each time noticing new sights or sounds never noticed before, including new perspectives of the plot.

They say, and I agree, that in home theater the better the picture quality, the better the perceived quality of sound. The eyes introduce new / different stimuli that must also be processed. So when participating in a shoot out, or even attending an audio show, it helps to either keep one's eyes closed or always keep the eyes focused on the same boring object or same spot on the front wall to minimize the brain's potential to introduce new stimuli while focusing on listening.

On the other hand, expectation bias comes in real handy when listening to your own reference material during such times. In fact, we count on it. So I'd hardly call it our worst enemy at least during those times.

DaveC · Apr 22, 2017

I'm curious how Klaus explains his IC cables changing SPLs? Wouldn't this be rejected outright as electrically impossible? Because technically, it is impossible given any cable anywhere close to normal and in this specific case the 3% or so difference in conductivity between silver and copper doesn't explain it.

I'm also curious how it could be possible that descriptions on how a certain cable sounds can be extremely similar in a very large majority of user's experiences? If this was made up as implied by Amir, Klaus and many others then these descriptions should be much more random, but they are not. When 95% of my customers describe my D4 in the same way, assuming they all didn't talk to one another and conspire, what might this mean?

jkeny · Apr 22, 2017

stehno said:
Well said.

Perhaps like snowflakes, no two events are identifcal nor can they be perceived as identical. So the so-called expectation bias being our enemy also applies to every facet of life when concentrating or focusing.

One good example might be watching the same movie numerous times and each time noticing new sights or sounds never noticed before, including new perspectives of the plot.

They say, and I agree, that in home theater the better the picture quality, the better the perceived quality of sound. The eyes introduce new / different stimuli that must also be processed. So when participating in a shoot out, or even attending an audio show, it helps to either keep one's eyes closed or always keep the eyes focused on the same boring object or same spot on the front wall to minimize the brain's potential to introduce new stimuli while focusing on listening.

On the other hand, expectation bias comes in real handy when listening to your own reference material during such times. In fact, we count on it during such times. So I'd hardly call it our worst enemy at least during those times.

Yea, I think people should stop treating auditory perception (indeed all our senses) as an accurate representation of "what's out there" - it really is not about accurately portraying the outside physical world to our internal consciousness (whatever that is) - it's much more concerned with getting a useful handle on the physical world in real time - the sort of information we need to exist in the world. It comes to it's decisions through rapid processing & analysis of limited information & reaches fairly reasonable results - results which are reliable enough to allow our survival.

Expecting perception to perform a task which involves accuracy & criticising it's lack of such ability is ridiculous & lacks an understanding of just what perception is about & what it's role is.

Ron Party · Apr 22, 2017

Around 20 percent of the people on the planet believe the sun revolves around the earth. A substantial number of people are climate change deniers. Statistics are a funny thing. So is circumstantial evidence. But the scientific method demands higher rigor. Falsifiability is sorely absent from these kinds of discussions. So are intellectual honesty and humility. Ditto for methodological integrity. It's too bad. The four most desperately missing words from the audiophile vocabulary are: "I could be wrong".

RogerD · Apr 22, 2017

DaveC said:
I'm curious how Klaus explains his IC cables changing SPLs? Wouldn't this be rejected outright as electrically impossible? Because technically, it is impossible given any cable anywhere close to normal and in this specific case the 3% or so difference in conductivity between silver and copper doesn't explain it.

I'm also curious how it could be possible that descriptions on how a certain cable sounds can be extremely similar in a very large majority of user's experiences? If this was made up as implied by Amir, Klaus and many others then these descriptions should be much more random, but they are not. When 95% of my customers describe my D4 in the same way, assuming they all didn't talk to one another and conspire, what might this mean?

Why shouldn't users describe similar positive effects when using cables that increase signal purity? Higher resolution and all the different facets that encompass it. Everybody talks about the effects of higher resolution and it is what drives the high end business. As to higher SPL's created with increased resolution,in my experience it can be perceived that way,once resolution is increased passed a certain point. Whether that is actually a increase in tonal saturation or dynamics I don't know. I have never measured it with a meter,but I definitely have thought it is possible.

RogerD · Apr 22, 2017

Ron Party said:
Around 20 percent of the people on the planet believe the sun revolves around the earth. A substantial number of people are climate change deniers. Statistics are a funny thing. So is circumstantial evidence. But the scientific method demands higher rigor. Falsifiability is sorely absent from these kinds of discussions. So are intellectual honesty and humility. Ditto for methodological integrity. It's too bad. The four most desperately missing words from the audiophile vocabulary are: "I could be wrong".

Bottom line you vote with your pocket book....in the end nothing else matters.

jkeny · Apr 22, 2017

DaveC said:
I'm curious how Klaus explains his IC cables changing SPLs? Wouldn't this be rejected outright as electrically impossible? Because technically, it is impossible given any cable anywhere close to normal and in this specific case the 3% or so difference in conductivity between silver and copper doesn't explain it.

I'm also curious how it could be possible that descriptions on how a certain cable sounds can be extremely similar in a very large majority of user's experiences? If this was made up as implied by Amir, Klaus and many others then these descriptions should be much more random, but they are not. When 95% of my customers describe my D4 in the same way, assuming they all didn't talk to one another and conspire, what might this mean?

I would guess that this is not an increase in SPL - it's really an increase in perceptual loudness.

Amir has reported this increase in perceived loudness which wasn't the result of SPL increasing but I can't remember what it was in relation to - maybe he can remind us?

This loudness increase can actually be the result of greater dynamics being perceived in the sound & before the measurements people all start to try to measure SNR, let me point out that they are being literal & simplistic in their thinking - o them greater dynamics = increased SNR. Not necessarily.

We have to go back to an understanding of perception - the onset or attack portion of a sound envelope is where we pay a lot of attention (we naturally focus on this - it's not voluntary focus). This is not surprising - we need to quickly categorise a sound as near/far, danger/not danger, etc. The same applies to listening to music, initial onset of notes/sounds are paid special attention to & are the main part used to identify the instrument which generated the sound.

So what has this got to do with an increase in perceived loudness with IC cables - as I said, I believe this is increased dynamics which could result from lower dynamic noise as a result of the IC cable. And again before the measurements people get their analysers out & start trying to measure a change in noise floor between IC cables - read my earlier words about literal & simplistic thinking - it's dynamic noise that I'm saying could be at the root of this, not noise floor - might not be but measuring noise floor with simplistic test signals is not going to reveal/contradict this.

If the attack of the sound envelope is cleaner/faster then we will likely perceive better dynamics (seemingly faster rise time) or better defined sounds (sounds which are more accurately defined in time in relation to each other)

stehno · Apr 22, 2017

Ron Party said:
Around 20 percent of the people on the planet believe the sun revolves around the earth. A substantial number of people are climate change deniers. Statistics are a funny thing. So is circumstantial evidence. But the scientific method demands higher rigor. Falsifiability is sorely absent from these kinds of discussions. So are intellectual honesty and humility. Ditto for methodological integrity. It's too bad. The four most desperately missing words from the audiophile vocabulary are: "I could be wrong".

Ron, I could be wrong but IMO, everything you said should apply equally to the scientific community and perhaps even more so.

For example, you make it sound as though denying Global Warming (aka climate change) is almost a sin when some believe it is anything but. But we digress.

stehno · Apr 22, 2017

jkeny said:
I would guess that this is not an increase in SPL - it's really an increase in perceptual loudness.

Amir has reported this increase in perceived loudness which wasn't the result of SPL increasing but I can't remember what it was in relation to - maybe he can remind us?

This loudness increase can actually be the result of greater dynamics being perceived in the sound & before the measurements people all start to try to measure SNR, let me point out that they are being literal & simplistic in their thinking - o them greater dynamics = increased SNR. Not necessarily.

We have to go back to an understanding of perception - the onset or attack portion of a sound envelope is where we pay a lot of attention (we naturally focus on this - it's not voluntary focus). This is not surprising - we need to quickly categorise a sound as near/far, danger/not danger, etc. The same applies to listening to music, initial onset of notes/sounds are paid special attention to & are the main part used to identify the instrument which generated the sound.

So what has this got to do with an increase in perceived loudness with IC cables - as I said, I believe this is increased dynamics which could result from lower dynamic noise as a result of the IC cable. And again before the measurements people get their analysers out & start trying to measure a change in noise floor between IC cables - read my earlier words about literal & simplistic thinking - it's dynamic noise that I'm saying could be at the root of this, not noise floor - might not be but measuring noise floor with simplistic test signals is not going to reveal/contradict this

Good points.

And generally speaking, it's my experience that when an object's performance improves, it's usually a result of improved efficiencies and/or lowered resistance. Which implies the object is running more efficiently and more true, thereby implying less friction, less heat, less resistance, less current draw, etc.

In such circumstances, the volume levels often times will increase a bit when the volume attenuator remains at the same positiion. This also implies the opposite if object's performance degrades.

Comparative Listening Tests

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads