Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[cnpope]

DBT's are for science.

It's that simple.

When you claim an effect actually exists, you are making a testable claim, and that puts your claim in the realm of science.

If you say "I like this", that's all there is to it. You like it. Fine. Preference is inviolate.

I agree completely. If someone says they can hear a difference between A and B then that is an objectively testable claim, and it can be verified or refuted by means of blind testing.

If the person believes they can hear the difference between CD and SACD then it is apparently rather straightforward for them to set up double-blind tests on their own chosen audio system, in the comfort of their own home. The issue of checking for other positives and negatives doesn't really arise here. The question is a simple one; can they distinguish CD from SACD, yes or no?

Sometimes the response to these kinds of arguments is along the lines of "why should the person bother to conduct such tests, if they are personally convinced they hear a difference?" There is of course no argument against someone who simply has a faith-based belief system and has no interest in challenging those beliefs. But anyone with a natural spirit of inquiry, and at least some level of awareness of the potential pitfalls of expectation bias, should surely be interested to test this for themselves?

Chris

 

[microstrip]

Well, again, M&M's subjects were even allowed to set a playback level *they* thought was most revealing. It sounds to me like M&M just can't win!




What weight do you give to opinions emitted under sighted conditions?

Fantastic again - a test that wants to be scientific that uses the level the "users thought to be most revealing". Revealing of what? Non existent differences in these conditions? No, it will never win.

A single opinion has very little weight for me, unless I know the person who posts it well, and if he explains it clearly and documents it with listening examples. However if I find a systematic in many independent opinions about a product that I have listened and they go along with the opinion I established when listening to the product I decide if I am interested or not in loosing my time with this product. Surely opinions of audio experts with great experience and having noticeable work in the audio field have much more weight than casual posts.

Most of the time I read the reviews as entertainment but also to know better the reviewer. I discard immediately any review that relies the same adjectives and sentences that can be found in the manual or marketing literature.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I'm prepared to believe that all modern DACs sound the same, and then it comes down to what I like about the connectivity, user interface (if it's got one), software (if it uses it) etc.

Can you explain with more detail what you mean by "I'm prepared to believe that all modern DACs sound the same"?

 

[microstrip]

First, I have participated in rather too many well-run DBT's.

(...)

J_J,

I have no reason to doubt of it. Are the conditions, data and results available to scrutiny of WBF members?

"Well-run DBT" is such a misused term that unless we are given good descriptive examples to debate we will go on debating futility forever.

 

[Groucho]

Can you explain with more detail what you mean by "I'm prepared to believe that all modern DACs sound the same"?

Yes. If I am convinced by the science that says no one can prevent themselves from being influenced by extraneous factors in sighted tests, then I 'know' that I cannot audition DACs meaningfully without a blind test. This just isn't going to happen for the reasons discussed. At the same time, if I understand something about the design of various DACs, then I can make an assessment of the meaningfulness of measurements of those DACs. For example, while I may doubt that THD and IMD measurements are a complete description of an amplifier's performance, maybe they are for DACs. If all DACs boast very, very good performance figures in real world tests, then maybe I can eliminate them from my enquiries - they're all going to sound exactly the same.

The clever part of a DAC is in the silicon chip inside the tiny plastic $10 package at the heart of the 100kg machined Tungsten enclosure. If I can reasonably establish that the enclosure, power supply etc. are ridiculous affectations then I can settle on a much cheaper DAC and spend the money on better speakers.

In summary: there is no way that I am ever going to be able to audition any equipment blind, nor would I want to. So I am looking for any short cuts that can cut out areas of wasted effort/money/time. Studying measurements and design is one way to do that.

 

[jkeny]

... For example, while I may doubt that THD and IMD measurements are a complete description of an amplifier's performance, maybe they are for DACs. ....

Really? Oh my!

 

[Groucho]

Really? Oh my!

Don't just leave us in suspense. Volunteer your special knowledge! Give us an example of a DAC where the measurements lied.

 

[microstrip]

Yes. If I am convinced by the science that says no one can prevent themselves from being influenced by extraneous factors in sighted tests, then I 'know' that I cannot audition DACs meaningfully without a blind test. This just isn't going to happen for the reasons discussed. At the same time, if I understand something about the design of various DACs, then I can make an assessment of the meaningfulness of measurements of those DACs. For example, while I may doubt that THD and IMD measurements are a complete description of an amplifier's performance, maybe they are for DACs. If all DACs boast very, very good performance figures in real world tests, then maybe I can eliminate them from my enquiries - they're all going to sound exactly the same.

The clever part of a DAC is in the silicon chip inside the tiny plastic $10 package at the heart of the 100kg machined Tungsten enclosure. If I can reasonably establish that the enclosure, power supply etc. are ridiculous affectations then I can settle on a much cheaper DAC and spend the money on better speakers.

In summary: there is no way that I am ever going to be able to audition any equipment blind, nor would I want to. So I am looking for any short cuts that can cut out areas of wasted effort/money/time. Studying measurements and design is one way to do that.

Still failing to understand what means very, very good performance figures in real world tests.
You referred to modern DACs - do you have any reason to believe that current DACs sound better than the fantastic measuring top DACs and CD players of the 90's? BTW I never expected someone to say that the power supply in an audio equipment is a ridiculous affectation!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree completely. If someone says they can hear a difference between A and B then that is an objectively testable claim, and it can be verified or refuted by means of blind testing.

If the person believes they can hear the difference between CD and SACD then it is apparently rather straightforward for them to set up double-blind tests on their own chosen audio system, in the comfort of their own home. The issue of checking for other positives and negatives doesn't really arise here. The question is a simple one; can they distinguish CD from SACD, yes or no?

Chris

It's really even simpler than that, and this is a point that is ignored by the defenders of the faith when DBTs are being discussed and they are demanding the highest scientific standards -- when their beliefs are not being challenged by data, many of them speak of differences between CD and hires, mp3 and CD, class A and D, entry-level and high-end DACs, etc., etc., as if they are glaringly obvious to anyone with ears. Many of them, even a few here, will insult your system, your ears and your intelligence when you don't hear what they "hear."

Ask them to close their eyes and the glaringly obvious requires the most stringent testing protocols imaginable. Or different systems. Or different material. Or different participants. Or a single, inappropriate control that has suddenly become the one thing required to validate every listening test.

The difference between CD and SACD - as shown on multiple high-end systems, playing a broad variety of audiophile material, to dozens of expert listeners, over hundreds of trials -- is, literally, vanishingly small. The hypocrisy of the arguments against that finding is palpable.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Still failing to understand what means very, very good performance figures in real world tests.
You referred to modern DACs - do you have any reason to believe that current DACs sound better than the fantastic measuring top DACs and CD players of the 90's? BTW I never expected someone to say that the power supply in an audio equipment is a ridicule affection!

Neither did I. There's a pretty large meaning gap between "ridiculous affectation" and "ridicule affection."

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Neither did I. There's a pretty large meaning gap between "ridiculous affectation" and "ridicule affection."

Tim

Thanks for pointing the mistype. Just corrected.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

J_J,

I have no reason to doubt of it. Are the conditions, data and results available to scrutiny of WBF members?

"Well-run DBT" is such a misused term that unless we are given good descriptive examples to debate we will go on debating futility forever.

Are the conditions, data and results of the "thousands" of audiophiles you claimed had identified cables in blind listening available to the scrutiny of the WBF? How about just 100? You know what? Don't worry about the conditions and data, just point us to their results.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

Still failing to understand what means very, very good performance figures in real world tests.
You referred to modern DACs - do you have any reason to believe that current DACs sound better than the fantastic measuring top DACs and CD players of the 90's? BTW I never expected someone to say that the power supply in an audio equipment is a ridicule affection!

We seem to be heading towards that argument that says "Not all DACs sound good - I made one on Veroboard and it sounded terrible. So there." Can we simply state that a DAC implemented with 'best practice' is what we're after. Let's just have an adequate power supply - a 500W power supply with 1F of capacitance is not going to make any difference at all to the sound, or the measurements. Let's have the correct bypass caps on the right pins, correct PCB ground planes etc. Ironically, it's the mass-produced DACs where these things are most likely to be correct, and the 'boutique' small companies and men working in garages where they're likely to be suspect.

 

[microstrip]

Are the conditions, data and results of the "thousands" of audiophiles you claimed had identified cables in blind listening available to the scrutiny of the WBF? How about just 100? You know what? Don't worry about the conditions and data, just point us to their results.

Tim

Tim,
You already asked it and I have already answered. No need to repeat.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Ironically, it's the mass-produced DACs where these things are most likely to be correct, and the 'boutique' small companies and men working in garages where they're likely to be suspect.

Just by curiosity, in which of these classes do you situate DCS, an UK company that produced some of best DACs I have listened to?

 

[Groucho]

I'm intrigued by what jkeny implied earlier, and microstrip mentioned about 90s DACs that measure well. Am I missing something in the measurements of DACs? If the DAC has very good* THD and IMD, very good* SNR, very good* frequency response, nothing unpleasantly RF at its output, is there any reason to believe it won't sound very good? Is there an obvious case of a DAC that is good on all these measurements, but has a fatal flaw..? Unfortunately, "DAC X sounded terrible" won't really answer the question if the test was sighted, so maybe there's no answer. I could conceive of a situation where a DAC performed well in tests, but certain signals caused instability due to inadequate power supply bypassing of the output buffer or something, and the test didn't happen to trigger the problem. This is where studying the design and 'best practice' would come in - having to trust the manufacturer that they haven't done something stupid to mess up the sound of the $10 chip from the mega-corporation by not following the data sheet.

*Very good = orders of magnitude quieter than it has ever been shown that a human can hear, even with the volume turned right up.

 

[Groucho]

Just by curiosity, in which of these classes do you situate DCS, an UK company that produced some of best DACs I have listened to?

I'm not very familiar with them, but I've heard of them and their reputation. I have to presume they follow the data sheets (or do they design their own circuits? If they measure well...)

Just went to their web site...

 

[jkeny]

Don't just leave us in suspense. Volunteer your special knowledge! Give us an example of a DAC where the measurements lied.

No need - example already given THD 0.0015% & sound was "hard & bright". Modifications removed this issue.

 

[Groucho]

No need - example already given THD 0.0015% & sound was "hard & bright". Modifications removed this issue.

...

Unfortunately, "DAC X sounded terrible" won't really answer the question if the test was sighted, so maybe there's no answer

 

[jkeny]

..... I could conceive of a situation where a DAC performed well in tests, but certain signals caused instability due to inadequate power supply bypassing of the output buffer or something, and the test didn't happen to trigger the problem. .....

Ah, right so dynamic test signals might trigger issues & reveal more than periodic ones, right? What test signals are used in the measurements you put so much faith in?