DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[ahofer]

Just for the record, I think Josh’s test is great, but I also think he should make his methods and equipment as transparent as possible. It’s still a massive outlier and deserves scrutiny.

 

[krabapple]

With normal competent design seen in nowadays DACs and preamps such interactions are no issue and non-existent. They are rather seen in exotic designs (tube output stage). You guys sometimes care too much about unimportant things.

Which funnily enough, is what one of our anklebiters accuses ASR (as a whole, it seems) of doing, re: SINAD.

 

[pma]

Did not speak about SINAD, myself, but about output impedance and drive capability and input impedance.

 

[krabapple]

I've actually read enough audio studies to know the tragic numbers of listener participants in most of them (vs. medical standards), and the scarcity of studies focusing specifically on this issue of coloration/FR-non-flatness detection ability. Reminder also, for the hard of hearing at the back of the class: when I see ASR bullies repeatedly skipping the step of showing what studies their bullying is based on, I am perfectly justified in saying "there are insufficient studies to support such bullying". Basic logic should've told you that's an unassailable inference, but it seems nature has not endowed all of us with the superpower of basic logic.


Just like every sentence you posted was "made up", yet curiously you expect people to understand it based on a preexisting familiarity with each separate word in it, and with how words in human language work together to encode meaning. Not only that, but if you suspected your readers of any intelligence at all, you might even go so far as to expect them to recognize the same concept in different writings available in other places even if it's named with different words! Crazy stuff, human language and reasoning - it can be shocking to the uninitiated.


First place I saw any information on it was here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/post-127757
It was called "frequency response deviation", but also quoted from Floyd Toole as "spectral tilt". Zero studies cited.

Then from the current thread I got this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...re-finally-proven-with-abx.72444/post-2650711
Here it's called "audibility of resonances" or of "modifications of timbre". Reported tests set up by Toole & Olive seemed to have used - hold on to something - two, four, and a whopping six participants for separate test conditions and endpoints.
Multiple preexisting studies are cited in there, most even older and near-impossible to find, some just paywalled. What I could dig up was a '75 Fryer write-up where he reports using "several" listeners, and since he splits them into skilled/unskilled and female/male, I guess he must've used at least 4 people. :')) A Moulana '75 paper thanks a total of nine subjects by name right in the preamble.

Moulana, BTW, calls their study's focus "tonal colouration" - obviously "jibberish" and "trolling", right? Just like Toole's Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences, 1986, going on and on with these "made-up terms" and obvious "trolling" about "audible colorations":

Well-known "troll" Floyd Toole, ladies and gentlemen.

And to finish up, later still in this thread I got this link: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/“human-ears-are-better-than-measurements-”-“humans-can-hear-things-we-can’t-even-measure-”.72288/post-2651009
These are not strictly on coloration audibility but rather focus on JNDs, but I'll accept them for now considering the scarcity of direct evidence, and for the sake of my point on typical numbers of participants in audio studies:
Yost & Nielsen 1985 - can't find it, unkown number of participants
Jestead 1977 - three participants
Johnson 1993 - paywalled
Norcross et al. 2003 - paywalled, but seems to have had fifteen participants for at least one of the tests, based on the reposted figure (mis-cited in discussions so far as "Scott et al."! CC: @RandomEar )


Same thread you're replying to without even reading it already showed you where I got it:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...re-finally-proven-with-abx.72444/post-2651081
(Toole & Olive 1988 study, if assuming correlated resonances when doing the decibel arithmetic, but also seems to be corroborated by Norcross et al. 2003 if we assume JNDs are directly translatable to coloration detection ability at normal/high listening volumes.)


I wholeheartedly approve of your change of avatar, you may proceed with my full blessing.


That's not how forum discussions work. You either know for sure if that text answers my explicitly described concerns - but in that case you could directly quote the two numbers needed for that: lowest amplitude difference detectable by the best listener under the best conditions, and number of participating listeners in the study - OR you have no idea what the text says that is relevant to this specific discussion, in which case you're just using that link as a bludgeon and not as a proper argument, like so many others love to do around here.

Oh do tell me how forum discussion works, good sirrah

Anyway,

Reluctance to track down important papers beyond simply hoping you can download them for free, is not our problem. Ditto reading reference texts rather than having them handed to you.

It bespeaks a certain disingenuousness.

Find a library that has free online JAES access. University libraries are often good for that, especially if they have an engineering library. They might even have bound physical copies. Ditto a copy of Zwicker & Fastl.

Or, make a buddy who does have such access, and ask them to help you out.

Or, pay for the articles.

This is what I've done over the years. (I've also been the 'buddy'.)

Do that, if it's really primary literature data you seek...as you claim.

 

[MattHooper]

Thread locked for maintenance per my previous post…

Maintenance complete and thread unlocked. Please remember to make productive posts and avoid personal comments!

Ouch

 

[ahofer]

There was also the guy in @Archimago ‘s DAC test who offered to bet like a million dollars he could tell them apart.

 

[SKBubba]

Josh on the other hand, got paid for article/testing by his boss at AS

Interesting. Did not know that.

I see the site has ads for a $15,000 streaming dac (that "presents all aspects of a recording - from individual sounds to the subtle timing and spatial cues that bring us a sense of space and depth") and some $82,000 speaker cables. I guess I live in a different world.

 

[ahofer]

Interesting. Did not know that.

I see the site has ads for a $15,000 streaming dac (that "presents all aspects of a recording - from individual sounds to the subtle timing and spatial cues that bring us a sense of space and depth") and some $82,000 speaker cables. I guess I live in a different world.

Ok, that’s credibility-damaging.

 

[Roland68]

From what I got from his article is that the attempt was mostly to satisfy his own curiosity and to prove or disprove (to himself) his idea that he could hear differences between DACs using the ABX box in a more scientific way without the help of others.

In that case, I simply cannot understand @Josh83 entire approach to discussing and defending the matter. It just doesn't square with the idea that he did it primarily for himself.

However, if we accept that perspective, then all of us—those discussing it, questioning the results, and wanting to verify everything—have made a huge mistake and completely misjudged the situation.
After all, the value of that statement and the results posted by @Josh83 would then be no greater than that of any other statement on this or any other forum.

If it is true that @Josh83 possesses records or data that would allow anyone to verify this, then the whole thing becomes even less credible to me—and certainly isn't worth a dedicated thread.

 

[AndyBell]

In that case, I simply cannot understand @Josh83 entire approach to discussing and defending the matter. It just doesn't square with the idea that he did it primarily for himself.

However, if we accept that perspective, then all of us—those discussing it, questioning the results, and wanting to verify everything—have made a huge mistake and completely misjudged the situation.
After all, the value of that statement and the results posted by @Josh83 would then be no greater than that of any other statement on this or any other forum.

If it is true that @Josh83 possesses records or data that would allow anyone to verify this, then the whole thing becomes even less credible to me—and certainly isn't worth a dedicated thread.

I think Amir’s first post in this thread is still very valid:

Josh made what appeared to be a really serious attempt to do an ABX test of DACs - that in itself is rare.

His results were rarer still and Amir did not dismiss them but immediately offered to help analyse them. As Amir put it - if the results could be verified then this is huge.

Shortly after that Amir made the most gentle of requests to access the comparator box and then things went downhill, as Josh was unwilling to part with it.

And then things just got silly.

It’s such a pity. This was (and maybe still is) a chance to formally put to the test the oft repeated claim that differences between competent DACs are inaudible.

Maybe the test may show that some listeners, or even just one, CAN distinguish them - science is about investigating and following the evidence. If that means changing our opinion on something, then so be it. There’s no shame in that.

But now the matter may never be resolved. If the box tests as transparent on both channels and nobody using it hears any differences, that still doesn’t prove Josh wasn’t able to do so. It makes it improbable, maybe incredibly improbable, but not impossible.

The only way to settle this (if the box is transparent) would be to have Josh repeat the tests in a properly supervised, recorded, environment, etc.

I doubt that will happen given the angst apparent on the AS thread, which contains significant gaslighting IMHO.

 

[PristineSound]

@amirm can I assume that once you get the ABX comparator, you will also use it to do ABX yourself? I trust your critical listening abilities, after all you are able to differentiate different bitrates (Something members here gave you a lot of crap about).

 

[solderdude]

But now the matter may never be resolved. If the box tests as transparent on both channels and nobody using it hears any differences, that still doesn’t prove Josh wasn’t able to do so. It makes it improbable, maybe incredibly improbable, but not impossible.

The only way to settle this (if the box is transparent) would be to have Josh repeat the tests in a properly supervised, recorded, environment, etc.

I doubt that will happen given the angst apparent on the AS thread, which contains significant gaslighting IMHO.

A way would be to record the excerpts Josh used from different DACs.
Ensure the files are all checked for tells and matching.
Post the files and ask Josh if he can Foobar ABX them.
If he can't there must have been a variable that allowed him when he tested using the box.
If he is able and did not cheat then the previous results have to be taken serious.

In that case it will still depend on the willingness of Josh to participate and post ABX reports.

A witnessed AB using the box again is not ever going to happen.

 

[welwynnick]

I think Amir’s first post in this thread is still very valid:..................

My sentiments exactly.

Post the files and ask Josh if he can Foobar ABX them.

Completely agree, and that's what I suggested on AS yesterday.
I live in hope.

 

[pma]

Post the files and ask Josh if he can Foobar ABX them.

He will not do it, as we can see from his posts at AS. BTW, some of our members started to be quite active there . Good luck, Flo, in carrying the cross .

 

[RandomEar]

@amirm can I assume that once you get the ABX comparator, you will also use it to do ABX yourself? I trust your critical listening abilities, after all you are able to differentiate different bitrates (Something members here gave you a lot of crap about).

This happens to be a bit of a party trick, as Amir explained himself here. Nonetheless, he is a trained listener and I would equally be interested in seeing him test the box "as intended" after measuring it. Or maybe even before doing so, to listen for tells and define a couple of additional measurements which might be helpful.

 

[AndyBell]

In that case it will still depend on the willingness of Josh to participate and post ABX reports.

A witnessed AB using the box again is not ever going to happen.

You are right.

In the event Amir finds nothing wrong with the box, it’s a stalemate regarding Josh’s results. No matter how many subsequent tests are done, they can’t disprove Josh’s results.

I won’t second guess what the response from AS/Josh would be if a significant flaw in the competitor is found. But I’m sure it will be interesting…

 

[PristineSound]

This happens to be a bit of a party trick, as Amir explained himself here. Nonetheless, he is a trained listener and I would equally be interested in seeing him test the box "as intended" after measuring it. Or maybe even before doing so, to listen for tells and define a couple of additional measurements which might be helpful.

Indeed!

 

[Deleted member 93733]

This happens to be a bit of a party trick, as Amir explained himself here. Nonetheless, he is a trained listener and I would equally be interested in seeing him test the box "as intended" after measuring it. Or maybe even before doing so, to listen for tells and define a couple of additional measurements which might be helpful.

Came across some interesting research today during my day job whilst reading into Low Frequency Noise. Pantev et al. 1998, found greater cortical reorganisation in skilled musicians and that this was enhanced the younger the age at which the learning began. The relevance for Josh is that he started ‘listening’ with focus from a young age (14 yrs i think) and that and other evidence suggests where someone has spent a great deal of time listening to and listening for their particular noise (or sound) it is possible that they may have developed enhanced sensitivity or susceptibility to this noise. Just some light reading for those with an interest in the human side of all of this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9572139/

 

[PristineSound]

Came across some interesting research today during my day job whilst reading into Low Frequency Noise. Pantev et al. 1998, found greater cortical reorganisation in skilled musicians and that this was enhanced the younger the age at which the learning began. The relevance for Josh is that he started ‘listening’ with focus from a young age (14 yrs i think) and that and other evidence suggests where someone has spent a great deal of time listening to and listening for their particular noise (or sound) it is possible that they may have developed enhanced sensitivity or susceptibility to this noise. Just some light reading for those with an interest in the human side of all of this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9572139/

That's perfectly fine, but the question remains: what is it about the different DACs that sounds different if they all measured transparent to human hearing? Josh may have "greater cortical reorganization" which is enhanced at a young age, but Josh is still human nevertheless.

 

[antcollinet]

Came across some interesting research today during my day job whilst reading into Low Frequency Noise. Pantev et al. 1998, found greater cortical reorganisation in skilled musicians and that this was enhanced the younger the age at which the learning began. The relevance for Josh is that he started ‘listening’ with focus from a young age (14 yrs i think) and that and other evidence suggests where someone has spent a great deal of time listening to and listening for their particular noise (or sound) it is possible that they may have developed enhanced sensitivity or susceptibility to this noise. Just some light reading for those with an interest in the human side of all of this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9572139/

As far as I can tell from the abstract of that article, it is only an investigation to how the areas of the brain devoted to audio stimulation are larger in muscians trained from an early age. There was no mention about what abilities this larger size might give to the musician.

Extrapolating that to an increased sensitivity - or ability to hear differences between DACs is pure speculation.**

Just as it would if I were to state it is more to do with the ability of a musician to 'control" their instrument more accurately - which I could state with just as much (of a lack of) validity.



**And is not borne out by tests in which musicians have not performed better in that task than non-musicians.