Can different CD *transports* sound different - when fed into the same DAC?

[BobbyTimmons]

No, double blind doesn't mean that. Double blind means the person administering the test doesn't know which of the devices is playing - so that he can't pass on any tells to the listener.

Single blind means that only the listener doesn't know.

I explained it's not single-blind as the listener knows what devices are being changed. If it was double blind the tester also wouldn't know.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

I don't think it was meant to be a scientific proof to anyone, it's an experiment amongst friends and guess what? They didn't hear a difference.

If they know the transport is being changed they already believe they wouldn't hear a difference. Results and lack of are explainable by placebo.

 

[Purité Audio]

If the differences are obvious you can still hear them sighted or unsighted, but you are right I don’t expect, for instance to hear differences in fine measuring electronics so I often ask someone else to listen while I switch.
Keith

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Exactly. How can you test transports/cd players without knowing you are doing it. We didn't know which one was playing. Every component was the same except for which one was playing.

My expectation bias was that there would be no difference. I could not change that, but my friend did not know that.

Was I supposed to test a transport against a turntable or a cassette deck?

You did a causal sighted listening test which is part of the audiophile hobby, just it's not evidence. To single blind test whether CD transports sound different they would not know which if any components are changed otherwise it's just testing expectations. It's the same as the sighted test we all do when we change transports or DACs. I already know all DACs and CD transports sound the same. I'm not testing that everytime I change them. My expectation is all DACs and transports sound the same unless malfunctioning. When I change DACs sighted I'm doing the same test as you were. It's enough for myself to believe that all DACs sound the same, just it's not strong evidence that would be produced by a blind test.

 

[CleanSound]

If they know the transport is being changed they already believe they wouldn't hear a difference. Results and lack of are explainable by placebo.

The guy said he didn't know:

(had a sheet hung up between the couch and the equipment).

I wore my hearing protectors I use when target shooting with various loud guns to try to keep from hearing the differences between inserting the CD in each drive.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

The guy said he didn't know:

He said he knew the hi fi was being modified by the CD transports being changed. It's a sighted test.

 

[voodooless]

He said he knew the hi fi was being modified by the CD transports being changed. It's a sighted test.

He said this:

we did a small "mostly blind" test (had a sheet hung up between the couch and the equipment). Two of us listened and the other did the switching. I wore my hearing protectors I use when target shooting with various loud guns to try to keep from hearing the differences between inserting the CD in each drive.

So he knew something might have changed. It could have easily been nothing, depending on the cleverness of the third wheel. I would definitely not call this a sighted test.

 

[JustJones]

So, the only way to do proper blind tests is if the listener has no idea what they're testing? If the test is between 3 amplifiers the listener isn't suppose to know it's amplifiers they're switching? I'm just asking is this really the way blind tests should be done? Or cables or I guess any DUT.

 

[CleanSound]

He said he knew the hi fi was being modified by the CD transports being changed. It's a sighted test.

He said this:

So he knew something might have changed. It could have easily been nothing, depending on the cleverness of the third wheel. I would definitely not call this a sighted test.

It's 100% not a sighted test, at least what he wrote and what I read. Is it a perfect blind test? No, but it's not meant to be laboratory, science grade analysis, it's a bunch of friends just casually experimenting if they can hear a difference from difference CD transports and they heard no difference.

I wish more people would do these casual and yet simple blind test, not to stick it up to pseudo-scientists of the likes of Danny Ritchie and Ted Denney but for their own edification and for the advancement of human intelligence (which apparently is in short supply nowadays).

 

[wwenze]

You cannot use double blind or ABX testing to prove that a difference doesn't exist. Because the simplest way to cheat it is to simply not listen or claim you cannot hear it or just put random answers in the question sheet.

The purpose of double blind is for the claimant of a difference to prove the difference exists.

You can, however, use double blind test to prove to yourself that you cannot hear a difference.

 

[antcollinet]

I explained it's not single-blind as the listener knows what devices are being changed. If it was double blind the tester also wouldn't know.

No - again blind simply means the listener doesn't know which of the devices is currently playing. He *can* know (and usually does) which devices are being tested.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just a for instance, Harman listeners know that speakers are being swapped out. They don't know which four are being listened to, but they know speakers are the difference. If they knew which speakers it still would not make it a sighted test because they don't know which are which while listening to them. Other kinds of blind tests are like the triangle method. You have three things, two are the same one is different. Can you discern the different odd man out? Then are the up down tests. Some factor, maybe distortion, is being varied. You start with easily audible levels and lower it until you miss one. Then it goes back a step and repeat until you miss a certain number. This is a blind way to determine a distortion threshold.

 

[Deleted member 70178]

I think the feature I liked the most about the Audiolab was its ability to read pretty banged up CDs like nobody's business. If using optical solves the intermittend audio issue and if your unit does not scratch CDs, I think you have a winner.

In my case optical was not an option as that input in my DAC was already being usef for my streamer. Otherwise, I think I would have kept it.

Funny enough it scratched a CD for the first time (Tricky-Falling to Pieces). Must have heard my praise

Another unit is coming to me next week, I'll try it and see.

In the mean time my Shanling ET3 arrived, and it's a fair step up in sound from 6000CDT. In comparison 6000CDT sounded flatter and less defined, while the ET3 ... is probably the best CD transport I have ever heard, personally. It fits unbelievable well into the sonic set up I am after.

Thinking about keeping 6000CDT but I doubt it will get any play time.

 

[Deleted member 70178]

I’ve owned mine for almost 3 years now. Never a problem (to date, touch wood/everything!) with even the slightest of CDs being scratched, but I’ve always had the same issue with coaxial spdif. Would seem to be a design flaw alas. Fortunately I use optical most of the time and otherwise have been delighted with its performance. Wonder if fitting a mains filter inside it might cure the issue? Audiolab don’t seem interested.

That's good to hear, like I said one of mine CD, oh well. 2000 some CD's in pristine condition, so I would not miss the 6000CDT, but of course there are a few CD "borrowed" and returned "just like they were"

But holy smokes, the ET3. Wow! If you have a chance to listen to this little transport. If this is the Shanling house sound I'm hooked for life. Digital vinyl, hi hi.

 

[rdenney]

Funny enough it scratched a CD for the first time (Tricky-Falling to Pieces). Must have heard my praise

Another unit is coming to me next week, I'll try it and see.

In the mean time my Shanling ET3 arrived, and it's a fair step up in sound from 6000CDT. In comparison 6000CDT sounded flatter and less defined, while the ET3 ... is probably the best CD transport I have ever heard, personally. It fits unbelievable well into the sonic set up I am after.

Thinking about keeping 6000CDT but I doubt it will get any play time.

Why would it sound any different? Was the 6000 reading the data incorrectly? I'm surprised it could play any music at all if it was injecting enough errors in the data stream to be audible.

Can different CD *transports* sound different - when fed into the same DAC?

Apologies if this has already been done, but nothing really discussing this came up when I searched. The question is simple, but I don't have enough technical knowledge of SPDIF etc. to say whether it is even possibly the case, or not. But my thoughts are that it sounds very unlikely anyway...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Scratching CD's is enough reason all by itself to reject a CD transport, without coming up with an unevidenced audible reason to rationalize its replacement. It's okay that you wanted a new CD transport.

Rick "needing evidence" Denney

 

[Deleted member 70178]

Why would it sound any different? Was the 6000 reading the data incorrectly? I'm surprised it could play any music at all if it was injecting enough errors in the data stream to be audible.

Can different CD *transports* sound different - when fed into the same DAC?

Apologies if this has already been done, but nothing really discussing this came up when I searched. The question is simple, but I don't have enough technical knowledge of SPDIF etc. to say whether it is even possibly the case, or not. But my thoughts are that it sounds very unlikely anyway...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Scratching CD's is enough reason all by itself to reject a CD transport, without coming up with an unevidenced audible reason to rationalize its replacement. It's okay that you wanted a new CD transport.

Rick "needing evidence" Denney

Oh hey Mr. Inquisitor : ) thanks for reading my comment.

Sure, we can say -that's fair, as I am perfectly fine with people who don't hear things the way or as well as I do : ) after all I am a professionally trained, employed mastering and production engineer, and you could be Einstein of audio scientific data, or Bob Katz for all I know, no idea. Is it you Bob?

Maybe, providing evidence to you is like convincing a devout follower that god does't exist, or an atheist that he does. Ha, I'm just joshing, it's def not like that or is it?

Definitely not here to provide "scientific" evidence or convert any kind of nay or yay sayer, in this case! Simply came here to express my disappointment in Audiolabs inability to fulfill its promise of providing uninterrupted sound through co-ax. I agree to disagree with you.

Was mostly hoping, that I would find a solution, honestly. Unfortunately my efforts are in vein. The ET3 would have been purchased one way or the other, as I want a top loader with I2S, AES, co-ax and USB outputs.

Now yes, you are right, it's audiosciencereview.com and not myearsreview.com so I tip my hat to you good sir.

A single lightly scratched CD is not a reason enough for me to dump it, is it, a bit extreme wouldn't you say. I for sure personally and in altered state have dropped and scratched more CD's than the 6000CDT, should I rationalize personal eternal leave? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree : )

Audiolab 6000CDT is great, it really is, especially since it excels in reading badly scratched discs, but ET3 beats it in sound.

Now, in the end you ask 'why'? That's a question you will have to answer for your self.

 

[rdenney]

Oh hey Mr. Inquisitor : ) thanks for reading my comment.

Sure, we can say -that's fair, as I am perfectly fine with people who don't hear things the way or as well as I do : ) after all I am a professionally trained, employed mastering and production engineer, and you could be Einstein of audio scientific data, or Bob Katz for all I know, no idea. Is it you Bob?

Maybe, providing evidence to you is like convincing a devout follower that god does't exist, or an atheist that he does. Ha, I'm just joshing, it's def not like that or is it?

Definitely not here to provide "scientific" evidence or convert any kind of nay or yay sayer, in this case! Simply came here to express my disappointment in Audiolabs inability to fulfill its promise of providing uninterrupted sound through co-ax. I agree to disagree with you.

Was mostly hoping, that I would find a solution, honestly. Unfortunately my efforts are in vein. The ET3 would have been purchased one way or the other, as I want a top loader with I2S, AES, co-ax and USB outputs.

Now yes, you are right, it's audiosciencereview.com and not myearsreview.com so I tip my hat to you good sir.

A single lightly scratched CD is not a reason enough for me to dump it, is it, a bit extreme wouldn't you say. I for sure personally and in altered state have dropped and scratched more CD's than the 6000CDT, should I rationalize personal eternal leave? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree : )

Audiolab 6000CDT is great, it really is, especially since it excels in reading badly scratched discs, but ET3 beats it in sound.

Now, in the end you ask 'why'? That's a question you will have to answer for your self.

Well, yes, I'm making an inquiry. You clearly believe that your heard something. I'm wondering what the ET3 could possibly do to beat any other transport "in sound." A transport does not produce sound--all it does is eject a stream of data. The $5 POS in my laptop does that, and gets it bit-perfect 99.99999% of the time (with error correction, just like what an audio transport uses). And it does so at reading rates many multiples of real-time CD audio.

It's not a matter of credentials, but a matter of observable effects that may or may not be useful guidance for someone else on the same path. Given that I don't own either of those devices, it would be a little difficult for me to answer that question, but then I wasn't the one that made the claim.

Rick "being able to reliably read scratched disks and CDR's is a good thing" Denney

 

[MAB]

Oh hey Mr. Inquisitor : ) thanks for reading my comment.

Sure, we can say -that's fair, as I am perfectly fine with people who don't hear things the way or as well as I do : ) after all I am a professionally trained, employed mastering and production engineer, and you could be Einstein of audio scientific data, or Bob Katz for all I know, no idea. Is it you Bob?

Maybe, providing evidence to you is like convincing a devout follower that god does't exist, or an atheist that he does. Ha, I'm just joshing, it's def not like that or is it?

Definitely not here to provide "scientific" evidence or convert any kind of nay or yay sayer, in this case! Simply came here to express my disappointment in Audiolabs inability to fulfill its promise of providing uninterrupted sound through co-ax. I agree to disagree with you.

Was mostly hoping, that I would find a solution, honestly. Unfortunately my efforts are in vein. The ET3 would have been purchased one way or the other, as I want a top loader with I2S, AES, co-ax and USB outputs.

Now yes, you are right, it's audiosciencereview.com and not myearsreview.com so I tip my hat to you good sir.

A single lightly scratched CD is not a reason enough for me to dump it, is it, a bit extreme wouldn't you say. I for sure personally and in altered state have dropped and scratched more CD's than the 6000CDT, should I rationalize personal eternal leave? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree : )

Audiolab 6000CDT is great, it really is, especially since it excels in reading badly scratched discs, but ET3 beats it in sound.

Now, in the end you ask 'why'? That's a question you will have to answer for your self.

Why wouldn't transports sound different?
You alluded you are a professionally trained mastering and production engineer. Unless your training is way out of date, you likely know what data is, and the potential areas where data error can occur, and can illuminate us. Would be good for you to support your anecdote.

 

[Deleted member 70178]

Well, yes, I'm making an inquiry. You clearly believe that your heard something. I'm wondering what the ET3 could possibly do to beat any other transport "in sound." A transport does not produce sound--all it does is eject a stream of data. The $5 POS in my laptop does that, and gets it bit-perfect 99.99999% of the time (with error correction, just like what an audio transport uses). And it does so at reading rates many multiples of real-time CD audio.

It's not a matter of credentials, but a matter of observable effects that may or may not be useful guidance for someone else on the same path. Given that I don't own either of those devices, it would be a little difficult for me to answer that question, but then I wasn't the one that made the claim.

Rick "being able to reliably read scratched disks and CDR's is a good thing" Denney

Nope, it wasn't so much a true inquiry, you were facetious, and I responded in facetious matter as well.

Why wouldn't transports sound different?
You alluded you are a professionally trained mastering and production engineer. Unless your training is way out of date, you likely know what data is, and the potential areas where data error can occur, and can illuminate us. Would be good for you to support your anecdote.

Yeah totally my ears are out of date : )

Maybe I should have not alluded, but kept as I did, in a joking tone, maybe that didn't come across. I just don't have any interest in discussing this past this point. I find that both of you came out of the gate swinging. Cool, I'mma exit stage left.

Have a great day.

 

[rdenney]

I’m always amazed that people spend so little time actually reading a forum before jumping in with what would be understood here as unevidenced. Ten minutes of rooting around here would have revealed that. Maybe even reading the same thread.

And then they use being corrected as an opportunity to deride that generally held view in the forum, and the people who hold it, pretending that any mere challenge to their claim is an affront to their listening skills/credentials/experience/whatever worthy of condescension.

Rick “was not being facetious, but was trying to politely expose the lack of controlled evaluation (or even understanding of how CD transports work), if there was a lack” Denney