DAC ABX shootout - unable to distinguish between 10$ and 15k$

[MarkWinston]

Of course not. Personally I feel fine making the assumption that neither my hearing nor my situation/setup is anything out of the ordinary.

If I should ever get the urge to put any of those things on a pedestal, I could just take the test myself.

Meh.

 

[MarkWinston]

No one is insisting anything except that people back up opinions with evidence.

Science works 2 ways Tony, when there are enough claims, researchers would dive in deeper to disprove or assert those claims. Many 'facts' known to us this day are built upon that. Science is based upon open mindedness and feedback, it doesnt stop here

 

[MarkWinston]

If others think a $9 dongle works perfectly fine as a DAC for them, why is this a problem for you? If you've done a proper ABX test and heard a difference, then don't use the $9 dongle. The only reason to get upset, IMHO, is if you've spent $15k on a DAC and can't tell the difference between it and the dongle. That would really p!ss me off.

Eh, I wasnt the one that claimed a 9 dollar dongle is not different from a 200 dollar one. If a 9 dollar dongle will satisfy you, by all means, go ahead and taste audio nirvana. All I have to say is that any individual that spent 15k on a dac deserves what he/she deserves, the same sound and 14,000 or so bucks lighter. Go do a comparo between an apple dongle and a 90ES, I wont want to go further.

 

[MarkWinston]

So basically, you’ve got nothing.

Mmmmhmmm. Ive still to your system with a 8 dollar dongle. Yeah, its 8 now.

 

[SIY]

Mmmmhmmm. Ive still to your system with a 8 dollar dongle. Yeah, its 8 now.

I can’t parse that garbled sentence. Which may be a good thing.

 

[MarkWinston]

I can’t parse that garbled sentence. Which may be a good thing.

Yup, typical response from an end all be all science disrupting troll.

 

[SIY]

Science works 2 ways Tony, when there are enough claims, researchers would dive in deeper to disprove or assert those claims. Many 'facts' known to us this day are built upon that. Science is based upon open mindedness and feedback, it doesnt stop here

That’s not at all how science works. But don’t let that stop you.

 

[MarkWinston]

That’s not at all how science works. But don’t let that stop you.

Ahhhh... so science works in how you want science to work. Mmmkay. Technical expert. Mmmhmmm. Wait for your 10-20 likes. Youll be proud.

 

[f1shb0n3]

Trolls are exhausting and ruin fine threads like this one. They feed on attention, so if you just ignore them they will wither away and go troll other places where they will get a reaction.

 

[Frgirard]

May I ask did you build or buy your switch box?
It is shocking when you first compare two ( properly engineered) dacs and realise that you cannot hear any difference, but it does allow you to focus on the aspects of reproduction that really can improve SQ.
Keith

A ME I know do the same test. He never heard a difference.

 

[MarkWinston]

Trolls. Bahahahahahhahahaha! Thats a new one. Anyone that disagrees is labeled a troll. Ok Mr fishbone. Thats one Ive never heard before.

 

[Frgirard]

The sound of dac is a legend. We still have proof.
Fortunately technology advances, unfortunately beliefs remain well anchored.

 

[Gene LeClair]

It isnt in the dongle thread. I got post banned in that thread and I couldnt reply further in that particular thread.

So why did you get banned in that other thread ?

 

[pkane]

So why did you get banned in that other thread ?

I suspect this was the reason...

 

[antcollinet]

Ahhhh... so science works in how you want science to work. Mmmkay. Technical expert. Mmmhmmm. Wait for your 10-20 likes. Youll be proud.

If this is how you went on in the other thread, I can see why you got thread banned. Is this just a second attempt to get your "banned from ASR" cookie?

 

[BDWoody]

Trolls. Bahahahahahhahahaha! Thats a new one. Anyone that disagrees is labeled a troll. Ok Mr fishbone. Thats one Ive never heard before.

I'll bet...but you're done here.

 

[anotherhobby]

@Echoes, thanks for the experiment. I'd like to understand your methodology. I'm interested in the process and repeatability of an experiment.

1. What audio did you use to level match? pink noise? At what level at the mic?
2. Did you do ABCDX, where ABCD are random order then randomly pick one for X, then ask "which one is X?"
3. Or did you do randomized pairwise comparisons?
4. How long were each sample played?
5. How many different samples did your have, and were they randomized order?
6. Could you list the tracks you used, I wonder how broad an audio gamut they span.

Thanks.

BTW, I recently started using this 1:4 (or 4:1) switchbox from Nobosound. With a little two-sided tape to the desk, it works very well.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Q1W4484

I find it interesting that 5 pages in the above quoted post is the only good request of information on the specifics of how @Echoes performed the testing, and it's currently unanswered. It seems like a blind spot to me on this forum when people post results that confirm the default ASR hypothesis on audibility, and the results are generally gracefully accepted by people who subscribe to the idea, and everybody does victory laps. People say that's what they would have expected, and yell "science" at people without drilling into testing methodology.

People seem to care deeply about the specifics of how testing was performed when the result is contrary to default ASR hypothesis. In science, we must question the methodology of not just the things that don't confirm the hypothesis, but also those that do confirm it. Otherwise it seems to me like people like to use "science" as a sort of sword and shield around here more so than a means to further knowledge and understanding.

Yes, the stated result of the test confirms my own belief that there are likely not audible differences, but that doesn't mean it's a good test that actually helps bolster the hypothesis. It might be, but we actually have no idea (unless it was posted and I missed it?). To know that, we need to know how the test was performed, and ask some more questions. To ignore this part of science is intellectually lazy. Aren't you at least curious people!?

I'd love answers to the above questions that @radix posted, if for no other reason than to simply improve my own knowledge and attempts at doing valid double blind listening tests.

 

[antcollinet]

I find it interesting that 5 pages in the above quoted post is the only good request of information on the specifics of how @Echoes performed the testing, and it's currently unanswered. It seems like a blind spot to me on this forum when people post results that confirm the default ASR hypothesis on audibility, and the results are generally gracefully accepted by people who subscribe to the idea, and everybody does victory laps. People say that's what they would have expected, and yell "science" at people without drilling into testing methodology.

People seem to care deeply about the specifics of how testing was performed when the result is contrary to default ASR hypothesis. In science, we must question the methodology of not just the things that don't confirm the hypothesis, but also those that do confirm it. Otherwise it seems to me like people like to use "science" as a sort of sword and shield around here more so than a means to further knowledge and understanding.

Yes, the stated result of the test confirms my own belief that there are likely not audible differences, but that doesn't mean it's a good test that actually helps bolster the hypothesis. It might be, but we actually have no idea (unless it was posted and I missed it?). To know that, we need to know how the test was performed, and ask some more questions. To ignore this part of science is intellectually lazy. Aren't you at least curious people!?

I'd love answers to the above questions that @radix posted, if for no other reason than to simply improve my own knowledge and attempts at doing valid double blind listening tests.

The reason for the apparent contradiction is that the controls in a properly implemented blind test are designed to prevent any biases from influencing the result. Biases can alter the subjects perception so that they hear a difference even when non exists.

If the controls are NOT properly implemented, the subject may perceive a difference where not exists based on the bias created by knowing what they are listening to. However poorly implemented controls will never hide a difference that does exist.

So that means if someone does not implement the controls properly but STILL fails to detect a difference in the test it really doesn't matter much if the test set up was flawed. A flawed test setup won't prevent you from hearing a difference that genuinely exists.

So in the negative result, the test setup doen't need to be questioned to the same extent - or at all: If I can't hear a difference even in a fully sighted test, then I can't hear it. Test controls are not needed.

 

[Killingbeans]

Aren't you at least curious people!?

I am. But I'm also lazy...

 

[Axo1989]

The only proper blind test is double.

I can't decide whether to respond a) incorrect, or b) why not triple? Science is hard.

I find it interesting that 5 pages in the above quoted post is the only good request of information on the specifics of how @Echoes performed the testing, and it's currently unanswered. It seems like a blind spot to me on this forum when people post results that confirm the default ASR hypothesis on audibility, and the results are generally gracefully accepted by people who subscribe to the idea, and everybody does victory laps. People say that's what they would have expected, and yell "science" at people without drilling into testing methodology.

People seem to care deeply about the specifics of how testing was performed when the result is contrary to default ASR hypothesis. In science, we must question the methodology of not just the things that don't confirm the hypothesis, but also those that do confirm it. Otherwise it seems to me like people like to use "science" as a sort of sword and shield around here more so than a means to further knowledge and understanding.

Yes, the stated result of the test confirms my own belief that there are likely not audible differences, but that doesn't mean it's a good test that actually helps bolster the hypothesis. It might be, but we actually have no idea (unless it was posted and I missed it?). To know that, we need to know how the test was performed, and ask some more questions. To ignore this part of science is intellectually lazy. Aren't you at least curious people!?

I'd love answers to the above questions that @radix posted, if for no other reason than to simply improve my own knowledge and attempts at doing valid double blind listening tests.

Human nature (for better or worse). But I liked @radix post. The OP may well respond when they update after foreshadowed further listening tests.