Are DBTs the defacto standard for Audio Science research?

[amirm]

Would you claim this is so because the actual surface areas and orientations of the speaker drivers differed between the two types?

No, in what you quoted from me, any speaker played to your right will send a different signal to your left than right ear. Again read the article I linked to on room reflections where I explain this principle.

 

[March Audio]

If everything you guys are saying is true, I would just throw in the towel on audio all together. We have maxed out years ago, your hearing is only going to degrade further making any possible future developments inaudible anyways. close the computer, enjoy what you have, and go lay on the beach.

I think it is very true that many audiophiles totally exaggerate the differences that are obtainable these days between many components. Also differences do not equate to improvements. Why has the ncore NC500 been designed to accept different input modules? So that manufacturers can tune the sound they want. This is to differentiate their product for marketing purposes, it is not to produce the highest fidelity.

It also has to be said that whenever I have witnessed people put under even the most unobtrusive controlled conditions their super aural abilities seem to evaporate.

 

[fas42]

No, in what you quoted from me, any speaker played to your right will send a different signal to your left than right ear. Again read the article I linked to on room reflections where I explain this principle.

Well, I'm still confused - there are no wall reflections in the situation, the signal is calibrated say at a point in the middle of your head when you're sitting in the listening position. Why should there be a major disparity between two types of speaker, acknowledging that the perceived signals between left and right ear will differ?

 

[amirm]

Well, I'm still confused - there are no wall reflections in the situation, the signal is calibrated say at a point in the middle of your head when you're sitting in the listening position. Why should there be a major disparity between two types of speaker, acknowledging that the perceived signals between left and right ear will differ?

They differ because the two speakers are different sizes/height and hence the impact of your body over their radiation is different.

 

[fas42]

Confusion reigns, for me ... ... you mentioned in the article that the problem increases as the frequencies go up - and at the same time the effective source of the acoustic signal decreases in size - why a treble driver has a tiny surface area. So I don't see where the size/height aspects comes into it.

 

[fas42]

Since you like YouTube search for Sonic Sense pro audio speaker comparisons. They record monitors at 18 inches in a treated studio using DPA omni mics. While I would not say it is equivalent to a live audition, it at least is rather close at capturing relative frequency balances. That alone is enough to eliminate some models from consideration, and uncover others worth finding for a real listen.

Thanks for that, I'll check them out ...

Edit: that didn't last long, they're off the air, or changed their domain name and not YouTube links ...

 

[Mivera]

no need to get personal. Do you take offense at this being characterized as looking like DIY? And we were talking about perceptions and bias. There was no objective data to understand, just a picture of a DIY project. I'm not sure why that post sent you off the rails.

Tim

I was referring to the stand alone Mirand DAC. The only evaluation you preformed with this unit was 100% subjective. With your eyes. from that subjective evaluation alone, you decided that it wouldn't meet your requirements. And here I thought you were an objectivist.

 

[Mivera]

Yes, your confidence in your own design and build expertise is one opportunity for bias. It might be a more powerful one than a beautiful case and a respected brand name, because it's personal. But breathe deep and slow, no one is insulting you. Expectation bias is human. None of us are immune.

Tim

Once again, the Mirand DIY DAC is not my design. I explain it over and over again and nobody is even listening. It's a very simple low cost DAC that would take an 8 year old 5 minutes to get up and running, costs under $500, and outperforms $5000 commercial DAC's. I can see subjectivist's being skeptical without listening to it, but objectivist's would study the data presented, and try to discover why I would make these bold claims. But the truth of the matter is, your subjective evaluation has deterred you from even wanting to go down that road.

 

[Mivera]

I think it is very true that many audiophiles totally exaggerate the differences that are obtainable these days between many components. Also differences do not equate to improvements. Why has the ncore NC500 been designed to accept different input modules? So that manufacturers can tune the sound they want. This is to differentiate their product for marketing purposes, it is not to produce the highest fidelity.

It also has to be said that whenever I have witnessed people put under even the most unobtrusive controlled conditions their super aural abilities seem to evaporate.

In an institutional environment, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be in a proper mental state to fully evaluate audio gear. The best way is in a relaxed environment, perhaps with a glass of wine, or some beers, listening to your favorite tracks you've heard over and over many times and the sound is burnt into your subconscious. This is how the 99.9% do it, and it works just fine for me.

 

[Mivera]

Did I say something about numbers, or are you attacking me personally?

Tim

I used you for an example because as a self proclaimed objectivist, I still have no idea which objective criteria you use to judge audio gear. So far all I've seen is subjective, so I figured the objective must be numbers.

 

[John Kenny]

Is this talk of needing two speakers not at odds with Harmon's research where they claimed that their results for one speaker translated /correlated to two speaker setups?

 

[March Audio]

In an institutional environment, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be in a proper mental state to fully evaluate audio gear. The best way is in a relaxed environment, perhaps with a glass of wine, or some beers, listening to your favorite tracks you've heard over and over many times and the sound is burnt into your subconscious. This is how the 99.9% do it, and it works just fine for me.

I don't agree with that I'm afraid, it's a very convenient excuse for the subjectivist position. In any case, even if true, simply confirms that the differences are indeed very small if they exist.

I have taken part in a well controlled listening test at the Tag Mclaren factory some years ago. It wasn't the least bit stressful for me or the 9 other audiophiles. Relaxed and comfortable. Could anyone reliably tell the difference between the Bryston and Tag amp? Nope.

The most recent test I was involved with compared original recordings with ones played back through my Mdac and re-recorded with my home brew ADC. This was on my dealers high end system at his house. Again relaxed and a few beers just as you describe. Outcome? A large preference for the inferior rerecorded track. The track had been made available to the audiophile participants some weeks before to listen on their own systems at their leisure.

I am quite confident I could repeat tests like this time and time again and get the same outcome.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I was referring to the stand alone Mirand DAC. The only evaluation you preformed with this unit was 100% subjective. With your eyes. from that subjective evaluation alone, you decided that it wouldn't meet your requirements. And here I thought you were an objectivist.

You misunderstood. I was using that DIY-looking thing as an example of expectation setting, not rejecting it myself. I did, however, reject it at a glance based on its lack of the feature set I require.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Once again, the Mirand DIY DAC is not my design. I explain it over and over again and nobody is even listening. It's a very simple low cost DAC that would take an 8 year old 5 minutes to get up and running, costs under $500, and outperforms $5000 commercial DAC's. I can see subjectivist's being skeptical without listening to it, but objectivist's would study the data presented, and try to discover why I would make these bold claims. But the truth of the matter is, your subjective evaluation has deterred you from even wanting to go down that road.

See my post above. It doesn't meet my needs. Objectively.

Tim

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Hi Sam, the referenced posts were deleted by Amir in another thread, but yes, a member positing research derived from blind tests as an argument, while maintaining this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ever...easurements-show-not-show-14.html#post2267178 and saying here they favor anecdotal reports over controlled blind tests.
Yes AES type tests as I usually reference.

AJ, from your OP and this post it is clear you created this thread as an anti-JohnKenny thread. Strange for an audio science forum. I enjoy when your posts contain interesting, scientific content, including references, but isn’t this just a personal vendetta? Is that appropriate?

To be clear, the post from John that you often cite here and in other forums, seems to relate to a specific comparison, where he rejects the need for a casually performed DBT versus subjective listening, and it is nearly 6 years old. I’ve only read posts from John the last year and a half or so, where he clearly states that he accepts professionally-done DBTs, but not those that are casually-done. Because of the uncertainty of such tests, he prefers to reject all that are casually performed. I have argued that point with him many times… quite civilly… and now we agree to disagree (since we both have better things to do than continue to try to persuade).

Rather than focus on one person (or a small group) that you consider the enemy, argue against their posts, not them personally. If you have to attack the person, not their current post, it weakens what may be important, useful points from you.

John and I disagree about as much as we agree, but we both like the science the other brings up (have you seen the threads he started in Psychoacoustics?). Since we both like to discuss science, he is not my enemy, even though we sometimes disagree.

 

[March Audio]

AJ, from your OP and this post it is clear you created this thread as an anti-JohnKenny thread. Strange for an audio science forum. I enjoy when your posts contain interesting, scientific content, including references, but isn’t this just a personal vendetta? Is that appropriate?

To be clear, the post from John that you often cite here and in other forums, seems to relate to a specific comparison, where he rejects the need for a casually performed DBT versus subjective listening, and it is nearly 6 years old. I’ve only read posts from John the last year and a half or so, where he clearly states that he accepts professionally-done DBTs, but not those that are casually-done. Because of the uncertainty of such tests, he prefers to reject all that are casually performed. I have argued that point with him many times… quite civilly… and now we agree to disagree (since we both have better things to do than continue to try to persuade).

Rather than focus on one person (or a small group) that you consider the enemy, argue against their posts, not them personally. If you have to attack the person, not their current post, it weakens what may be important, useful points from you.

John and I disagree about as much as we agree, but we both like the science the other brings up (have you seen the threads he started in Psychoacoustics?). Since we both like to discuss science, he is not my enemy, even though we sometimes disagree.

Whilst there may be good reasons to reject a casually performed blind test, it can of course be flawed, it doesnt automatically follow that they are flawed or invalid. However there is no good reason to accept any findings of a sighted test. The subject will be influenced by various biases.

The problem also exists where people choose the evidence that supports their position, which I think is what has been legitimately highlighted here and in another thread.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks for that, I'll check them out ...

Edit: that didn't last long, they're off the air, or changed their domain name and not YouTube links ...

Posting from a phone so not as easy to include links or I would. Check again as the YouTube video is still there.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Whilst there may be good reasons to reject a casually performed blind test, it can of course be flawed, it doesnt automatically follow that they are flawed or invalid. However there is no good reason to accept any findings of a sighted test. The subject will be influenced by various biases.

Well this may be your opinion. However on this subject you and I will just have to agree to agree.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I used you for an example because as a self proclaimed objectivist, I still have no idea which objective criteria you use to judge audio gear. So far all I've seen is subjective, so I figured the objective must be numbers.

You assumed incorrectly. I'm actually in the camp you are discussing with Amir and a couple of others right now. I believe audio electronics are such a mature category that the differences between electronics designed, engineered and built with the objective of achieving the best possible fidelity to the source are insignificant. So I put my faith in companies and designers who believe in no audiophile voodoo, seek no "tonality" or house sound, and whose goals are focused on the accurate reproduction of the recording. It frees me to concentrate on transducers, recordings, listening. The most subjective stuff. I'm not so much a self-declared objectivist as anti-"high-end." The "high-end" (I find it almost impossible to type without qualifying quotation marks) world is teeming with bias and self-delusion, and the "marketing" of "high-end" is full of fraud. I approach all "audiophile" products, especially the absurdly expensive ones, with a high level of skepticism, and the ears of "high-end" hobbyists are the last thing I'd trust.

I suspect that was less than clear, so let me give you an example. In my interest in a DAC/pre, I would simply buy a Benchmark, based on their objectives, philosophy, reputation and yes, the stunning numbers to be found in independent reviews by professional, not hobbyist, publications. If there is an audible difference between the Benchmark and a Vivaldi stack, I suspect that thorough analysis would reveal it is the fault of the Vivaldi, deliberately created by the desire to appeal to audiophiles. But Benchmarks products are deliberately over-engineered and necessarily over-priced, and I believe a product could be made that would be indistinguishable from the Benchmark, even with the full feature set of their DAC/pre, at a fraction of its price. I love a bargain.

And yes, I know we disagree.

Tim

 

[March Audio]

Well this may be your opinion. However on this subject you and I will just have to agree to agree.