If both chains are confirmed voltage matched and I can identify which chain is which in a property managed blind tests, where which chain to be selected is determined by a coin flip, I would say getting 50/50 would satisfy most people here?
Because I am still curious why I get different clues with different chain, when running online timing tests. Could the different clues tell me something more, like which chain is best for primary listening chain???
Like I said, I am willing to do something like a $10k challenge to prove that it is not my mind.The clues may just be telling you at different times/places/efforts you're still being influenced more by your mind than your ears....and it's still trivial.
ps I'd call it obsessive mostly
pps If I ever get up to Portland hope to get a definitive demo
I've no interest in such. I doubt you'll win, tho.
Would love to see this carried out....but the terms/meeting can be difficult to arrange. Then again, why is it even important at all?
While I do think it is commendable that you repeated the test with level matching, it is IMO much too early to jump to any conclusions - TBH repeating your claims after each round of informal tests makes it seem like your mind is already set on the desired outcome, even before attempting any test. This is suggestive of confirmation bias, making it more difficult for you to facilitate a reliable test in the first place; and unfortunately also for others to have confidence in the results you present.
However it is why we have to work hard to eliminate its effects from our investigations. It is also prudent to be reasonably skeptical of one's own work - especially when it is producing unexpected results.Honest question - if your motivation is to learn and understand, why offer money / make a challenge out of it at all?
Do you have any explanation for the pretty severe HF roll-off seen in the Topping stack FR (-5dB @ 20kHz)?
While I do think it is commendable that you repeated the test with level matching, it is IMO much too early to jump to any conclusions - TBH repeating your claims after each round of informal tests makes it seem like your mind is already set on the desired outcome, even before attempting any test. This is suggestive of confirmation bias, making it more difficult for you to facilitate a reliable test in the first place; and unfortunately also for others to have confidence in the results you present.
Please don't take this personally - we all sometimes fall prey to confirmation bias - that comes with being human.
Lastly, I hope you realize that listening sighted is a serious problem. You may notice that not all test variants I proposed in post #4 are level-matched, but all are blind. In addition, multiple randomized trials would be required to reach any statistical significance. It can be tedious work.
Honest question - if your motivation is to learn and understand, why offer money / make a challenge out of it at all?
If you're honestly interested in this line of investigation (as you seem to be, given the time invested so far), and believe you have solid findings that corroborate your point of view, why not spend the time, money and effort to instead learn more about controlled listening test methodology yourself, build a solid controlled test protocol, and try to present your findings somewhere for formal peer-review?
Do you have any explanation for the pretty severe HF roll-off seen in the Topping stack FR (-5dB @ 20kHz)?
'Hairiness' in the FR plots may also suggest some issue with the setup - perhaps driver-related? In addition to FR, I'd suggest to also show a distortion vs frequency plot.
Unfortunately we're all subject to cognitive bias - regardless of our awareness of its existence, or our critical listening competence. Note that here you appear to be appealing to a variation of 'argument from authority', a common fallacy.
I'm a bit saddened if you see my posts as 'arguing'. My genuine intention was to provide a possible answer to the question you posed in this thread and to try and help you improve your test methodology.
As you can see in my post prior to your reply, I already updated my sentence before you post your last reply.Unfortunately we're all subject to cognitive bias - regardless of our awareness of its existence, or our critical listening competence. Note that here you appear to be appealing to a variation of 'argument from authority', a common fallacy.
I'm a bit saddened if you see my posts as 'arguing'. My genuine intention was to provide a possible answer to the question you posed in this thread and to try and help you improve your test methodology.
BTW - me doing the same test as you would not be peer review. Peer review means looking at your methodology and conclusions and providing comments and proposals for improvements (where applicable) - i.e. similar to what I tried to do up to now.
What you suggest I do is independently replicate your test and confirm / refute the validity of your results. However for people to be interested in replication you should first be able to show that your method is valid.
Anyway I think there's not much more I can help with so I'll drop out now. I do hope you found some of the information helpful and wish you good luck with your investigations!
Haha, regarding the Topping combo slope, I just realized it is normal because my E30 filter is somehow set to #2. I will check again with filter 3 when have time.
www.audiosciencereview.com
Interesting!
Hmm, thinking more about it after looking at my chart again at
www.audiosciencereview.com
