svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
Well, you'd have to flip it more than twice...
And 60/40 should be a pretty common result for 5 flips.
3 heads 2 tails = 60/40
Well, you'd have to flip it more than twice...
And 60/40 should be a pretty common result for 5 flips.
3 heads 2 tails = 60/40
Well BE718, I suppose that is your interpretation. I'm keen for open discussion - hence my question.
It's always the same fairy-tale stories. Superdad and the rest of the subjective clan will make claims of having thousands of customers that will testify to the improved SQ of their widgets and devices. So does David Copperfield, "that 747 disappeared right off the runway, I seen it with my own two eyes". But when it comes to ever supplying any supporting evidence they scatter like some insects do running from the light. They've been invited over and over at CA to participate in some bias controlled listening tests but no way Jose, that ain't never gonna happen.Well the discussion you will get from Uptone will revolve around claims of efficacy with zero evidence to back it up, Go for it though
How many tries?
As far as I can tell the discussion is about 60/40 not 50/50. You said that with a coin flip you could do as good or better than 60/40. I'm not a statistician but it seems to me that this may be true with 10 trials, but with let's say 40 trials the probability of getting 24 or more successes is only ~13%. So it very much depends on the number of trials.You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
First welcome to the forum. Second, thanks for the reasonable way you are asking your question.Well BE718, I suppose that is your interpretation. I'm keen for open discussion - hence my question.
A related question, which has been touched upon but perhaps not addressed specifically: although the Rendu products (+/- the LPS-1 or similar) have been shown here to (at best) have no discernible effect on SQ (at least according to the particular set of measurements made here), is it possible that the net effect of removing a "noisy" PC from the audio rack outweighs all this and hence the Rendu provides some benefit this way? Amir had used his laptop in the experiments and so I suspect the answer to my question here will be "no", just keen to have this confirmed.
Does the randomness of coin flipping effect the eventual outcome? You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
First welcome to the forum. Second, thanks for the reasonable way you are asking your question.
"Noise" is the easiest thing to measure with instruments. And that is what I have been showing. That other than a single, poorly designed DAC (Schiit Modi 2), all other DACs are so immune to noise from the PC that no extra cleaning of either USB bus or power supply makes any difference. The measurements have been so accurate as to show that the external power supply that these devices can generate noise that was not there at the start.
All of this points to no value unfortunately in this class of products even if your ears were as sensitive as our instruments.
I think this is called a tangent And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu
I find it fascinating that there can exist such a chasm between the views of those on some of the other audio forums, compared with those on more scientifically oriented forums such as this one. I broached the subject on the Roon forums (great software BTW) and the reply I received (from a user I didn't know) was somewhat adversarial.
A common approach from the "scientific" camp in attempting to bridge this gap, as far as I can tell, is to suggest that the audiophile engage in double-blind tests of the equipment. I agree that this would make sense. I think it is done quite a lot, though I imagine that there are those (maybe more linked with manufacturers or sellers) that might not be keen on this option?
The other issue though is to ask the scientific camp if they have "tried" the item in question and attempted to discern any difference with their own ears rather than with instruments. Of course this opens up the area of psychoacoustics, but this can be remedied with the double blind method. In addition, it tends to be stated that a sufficiently "resolving" (which equates to a large extent with cost) system is required to hear the differences. So we would require someone with a scientific approach, expensive hifi equipment, reasonable hearing and of course an open mind. I wonder if they exist
Well, of course some might accuse. But that should by no means deter from this method. There will always be those that eschew a particular method or approach in the search for truth and understanding, but that shouldn't hinder the search.The result is then used to accuse.
I think this is called a tangent And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu
I find it fascinating that there can exist such a chasm between the views of those on some of the other audio forums, compared with those on more scientifically oriented forums such as this one. I broached the subject on the Roon forums (great software BTW) and the reply I received (from a user I didn't know) was somewhat adversarial.
A common approach from the "scientific" camp in attempting to bridge this gap, as far as I can tell, is to suggest that the audiophile engage in double-blind tests of the equipment. I agree that this would make sense. I think it is done quite a lot, though I imagine that there are those (maybe more linked with manufacturers or sellers) that might not be keen on this option?
The other issue though is to ask the scientific camp if they have "tried" the item in question and attempted to discern any difference with their own ears rather than with instruments. Of course this opens up the area of psychoacoustics, but this can be remedied with the double blind method. In addition, it tends to be stated that a sufficiently "resolving" (which equates to a large extent with cost) system is required to hear the differences. So we would require someone with a scientific approach, expensive hifi equipment, reasonable hearing and of course an open mind. I wonder if they exist
I attached a simple html app to simulate brute forced ABX. The questions and answers are randomly generated and every time browser is refreshed a new set of results will come out. Here is a sample result:
6/10 or above in 1000 tests: 428
7/10 or above in 1000 tests: 187
8/10 or above in 1000 tests: 51
9/10 or above in 1000 tests: 9
10/10 in 1000 tests: 1
Which means in this particular simulation, a wild guess without listening can yield 428 positive results in 1000 tests with 10 trials if 6/10 or above is considered as "pass". Also, it is not uncommon to see zero in 10/10 since the chance is very low.
I don't know why you interperted my simulation as a human being doing 1000 ABX tests. It would take at least several months if I am going to do that, unless I don't listen at all but guess. A more reasonable assumption is 1000 different person doing the same ABX test.Which is a different situation. Doing a 10 trial ABX and repeating it 1000 times isn´t the same as to ask what number of trials it needs to get a significant result when delivering 60% correct answers.
In the case of a 10 trial ABX the probability to get 6 correct answers by random guessing is p = 0.377 , so the expected value to get this result when doing the same test 1000 times is 377 tests with this result.
But otoh if you do a 80 trial ABX then you´ll have a significant result on SL=0.05 level if the participant got 60% correct answers.
P(48 l 80) = 0.046 .
Btw, doing an ABX without training of the participant isn´t a good idea as it is known that the internal mental processes are more involving compared to A-B tests.
Doing such tests without positive controls isn´t a good idea.
Doing an 10 trial ABX isn´t a good idea unless the detection ability of the participant isn´t really high (means > 90% ) otherwise the probability of committing an error of the second kind (means to not reject the null hypothesis although it is false) will be way to large.
I attached a simple html app to simulate brute forced ABX. The questions and answers are randomly generated and every time browser is refreshed a new set of results will come out. Here is a sample result:
6/10 or above in 1000 tests: 428
7/10 or above in 1000 tests: 187
8/10 or above in 1000 tests: 51
9/10 or above in 1000 tests: 9
10/10 in 1000 tests: 1
Which means in this particular simulation, a wild guess without listening can yield 428 positive results in 1000 tests with 10 trials if 6/10 or above is considered as "pass". Also, it is not uncommon to see zero in 10/10 since the chance is very low.
Sorry, my question wasn't clear looking back. I was asking how many tests did the subject do with the cables, that ended with 60% right?Does the randomness of coin flipping effect the eventual outcome? You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
Absolutely. That functionality of being able to place a PC in a remote location is absolutely useful. That should be the main reason people buy these streamers.I think this is called a tangent And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu
Neither. The problem is that from run to run, what we think we "hear," changes. The sound can be identical and yet we perceive differences. You can even "not want it to be different" and still hear it as different! Many factors go into our perception and sound is but one.Amir: are you saying that all differences heard between signals fed (1) via a Regen or a Recovery and (2) without it are auditory hallucinations, or the result of self-persuasion?
Unfortunately "not believing" or "not wanting" will not fix the problem above. The mere fact that a change has been made (e.g. a new cable) will cause you to pay more attention to the music and all of a sudden you hear more detail. That detail was always there. But you had not focused to hear it. Once you hear it in the new cable, then your mind gets conditioned to think that the old cable was not as good. And that is what happens.I may have missed something in regard to cables too: I find that they sound very different from one another. Is that an illusion too? My very (IT) techie brother-in-law refuses to try an "audiophile" mains lead to feed his Peachtree DAC because he refuses to believe that a mains cable can make any difference to the sound. I have many audiophile mains cables and no interest whatsoever in preferring one to another, and whether or not I prefer one to another, I certainly find that the sound is different when the mains cable is changed.