DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[RexrothPigeon]

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/

I don't see how this is relevant to his claims of what can only be described as superhuman hearing. That study doesn't point in that direction at all afact.

 

[Deleted member 93733]

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.

There is another paper below that one in the link relating to plastic adaptation. And if you need it, work done by Leventhall et al, 2003. I never said anything about dacs, that was your doing. There has been quite a bit of discourse about Josh and his hearing ‘tells’ and cues. I just thought it was interesting reading around development of enhanced sensitivity.

Maybe the folk over at AS are right about this forum.

See ya

 

[Mort]

Maybe the folk over at AS are right about this forum.

See ya

Adios. This place requires a thicker skin than that.

 

[antcollinet]

I never said anything about dacs,

WTH.

What is this thread about if not audible differences between DACs? It's right there in the thread title?

 

[AudioSceptic]

We apply science when we assess audibility of measurements. So while it is true that measurements are just technical evaluations, their analysis using scientific is very proper and what we do every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

We haven't said we are the last word. We routinely bow to the incredible work that top researchers in the field have provided us. We stand on shoulders of giants.

AS however, can easily be dismissed as having little interest in proper science and engineering of audio products. It is all the "trust me bro" culture of "I have said, so it must be right."

In other words, a huge gap between us when it comes to reliability of fidelity assessments.

Actually, it could have, and can still be an important development. He just managed to screw the pooch from the start in thwarting our attempts at analyzing and understanding what he had done.

He has in our book. If his results are correct, it has incredible impact in how we talk about DACs in the specific, and audio products in general. Him or you backpaddling is just a defense in case it turns out the results are not trustworthy.

Not at all. We are not stupid. We can see easily when someone slaps you in the back of the head in front of you but then says he didn't do it.

You don't say I have these amazing blind test results but excuse me, I am a) too busy to help you understand it and b) give you anything tangible to analyze. I would have been his best friend in this thread if he had agreed to loan his ABX device to me. And others would have been overjoyed with access to captures he has.

By now you have seen numerous posts from him here and on AS. So let's agree (a) was a farce. And with us having to pay so much to buy his box, (b) was a farce as well.

Almost everything you see here is the results of his conduct, and frankly, the few of you defending him in such poor manner.

Really, stand on the side of getting to the truth. Don't give him cover like this (especially since it doesn't work). Tell him that he should have enabled us fully to replicate his results. After all, what could have been more powerful than our endorsement? And if we did find his results to be faulty, don't you want to know that instead of putting your head in the sand thinking they are good?

Amir, I agree with most of that but feel that perhaps more of the blame for this situation should be put on the AS disciples and less on Josh himself. He appeared to enter into all this in good faith and perhaps felt under attack from some here. We really don't want a feud between 2 sites both interested in high quality audio, do we, even if we disagree about what we think is the best way to address it? No one comes out of feuds looking good.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Amir, I agree with most of that but feel that perhaps more of the blame for this situation should be put on the AS disciples and less on Josh himself. He appeared to enter into all this in good faith and perhaps felt under attack from some here. We really don't want a feud between 2 sites both interested in high quality audio, do we, even if we disagree about what we think is the best way to address it? No one comes out of feuds looking good.

If Josh were actually interested in finding the truth, he wouldn't be deterred by petty offenses (and he'd share his data). It's very hard at this point to believe that he is operating in good faith at all.

 

[WilliamfromParis]

Hi Flo, I’ve been silently following this thread, and I’m sure I missed some of it. I appreciate the effort and the opportunity offered to all of us to get to know more with the purchase of the ABX box.
You’ve reviewed several of my devices in the past, that was eye opening to me, and probably not only for me.
For these reasons, I’d like to contribute to the effort by sending you 200 chf, as I see we’ll get one more opportunity to learn something new (or maybe not).
Talk to you soon!

 

[krabapple]

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

Gaslighting is a type of *lying*, you know

 

[krabapple]

There is another paper below that one in the link relating to plastic adaptation. And if you need it, work done by Leventhall et al, 2003. I never said anything about dacs, that was your doing. There has been quite a bit of discourse about Josh and his hearing ‘tells’ and cues. I just thought it was interesting reading around development of enhanced sensitivity.

Maybe the folk over at AS are right about this forum.

See ya

And yet ya posted it in a thread about hearing DAC difference. Heaven forbid we connect any dots. If it was about hearing "tells and cues" maybe ya shoulda said that.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

And that is the issue hovering over all of this:

How much is enough?

For any particular claim, or blind test, how much is enough in order to accept the results?

We are trying to maintain a scientific mindset, but of course it’s the case that there’s the important distinction between “the evidence is conclusive” and “the evidence is sufficient to rationally accept the conclusion for now.” Science almost never gives us the former in the absolute sense. There is no point at which science normally says “all possible objections have been eliminated.”

A lot of science consists of peers trying to find weaknesses in each other’s work.
You’ll have scientist who find the evidence from a certain study to be persuasive, others who think the evidence is suggestive but insufficient, others who hold that there’s likely a methodological flaw that substantially undermines the conclusion.

So individual scientists and communities are stuck making judgments about how much evidential weight should be assigned to the available evidence. They can be rational judgments, but there’s still often an element of subjectivity as to where one grants assent to the conclusions.

And you can see that playing out in this thread. There’s a variety of suggestions as to what it would take to justify accepting the results of Josh’s test right down to sending the ABX box, all his cabling and all the DACs to ASR.

You’ve got folks like pablolie who has said essentially he rejects the results out of hand, not even interested in exploring the results.

There’s PMA’s response to Josh’s test: “I am not much interested in his results, even if they were 100/100 success. The reason is, as I have mentioned many times, that his test conditions cannot be independently verified and repeated.”

Some seem to think measuring the ABX box will be enlightening, others seem to think it still doesn’t guarantee it will allow us to rule for or against Josh’s results.

It doesn’t seem surprising an audiophile might conclude: “ OK I followed these recommended steps to do a blind test and I got my results, I’m going to decide how much creedence to put in the results. And I also understand that if I present my results to others, there’s always going to be someone who might accept the results and others who reject the results as undemonstrated, because somebody can always come up with something more that could’ve gone wrong, or more stringent requirements in order for them to accept the results. So I’m going to draw my own line.” And that the line one draws is going to be different from the lines drawn by other people here.

And on the theme of an individual audiophile doing blind testing:

Before I did my last blind test between my preamplifiers I watched Amir’s excellent video on how to do blind testing, which included instructions for people to try blind testing at home. (It’s also my impression that the protocols Amir is willing to accept or suggest in that video are allowed to be somewhat looser than the level of scrutiny being brought Josh’s test).

@amirm , You mentioned in the “how to repeat the tests” portion about how one can do blind randomized, switching between two different audio items, and you conclude:

Compare the two and see how many you got right, and “ if you didn’t get nine out of 10 right, I’d say you just learned something important about audio that you didn’t know.”

But what if you did get 9 out of 10 right? Did you also just learn something about audio? Presumably positive results count as well.

Let’s say somebody had blind swapped between two different AC cables and they got nine out of 10 guesses right. Did they just learn something about audio?

We would agree that on technical grounds those results would be very implausible, and would more likely point to a flaw in the test.

But this would mean that the individual would need that type of wider context knowledge to know how much epistemic weight to give their results. Successful blind test results are not enough. (I would use the heuristic “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” to navigate this space, but of course that takes some knowledge of what amounts to an extraordinary claim in audio engineering and psychoacoustics).

And then you start to get the gray areas…. Differences between amplifiers, especially tube amplifiers, DACs….

Did I for instance learn that (years ago) in using the type of protocol you suggested in your video, where my results for identifying between CDPs and a DAC were well beyond chance…that I should accept my results? Did I learn the truth that they really sounded different?

If I present the methods here and there’s nothing that stands out to others indicating a flaw people can put their finger on, folks can still reject the results because there may be some hidden flaw I wasn’t aware of and is not reported properly. (which is a properly scientific mindset…. It’s the reason for other parties trying to replicating results),

That being the case is it ever justified to accept the results of a blind test we individuals attempt at home?

(this is very far from a slippery-slope throwing up of hands and saying “ therefore how can any scrutiny ever settle any claim?” I have my own views of how to answer some of these questions, but I’m looking to see what other members here have to say).

 

[pma]

You like to make it complicated, right?

 

[MattHooper]

You like to make it complicated, right?

Ha.

If you survey all the analysis of Josh’s results, all the questions and technical discourse and various opinions on what would be required to accept the results … it ain’t me who’s making things complicated.

Josh went through quite a lot of complicated effort to do his test… and it still wasn’t enough, right?

 

[AndyBell]

That being the case is it ever justified to accept the results of a blind test we individuals attempt at home?

For personal decision making, I’d say yes - meaning I would make decisions based on my own test.

If I want others to take the test seriously, I’d want to provide as much evidence as possible and be prepared to repeat the test under controlled supervision.

‘Take my word for it’ is not evidence.

 

[amirm]

Josh went through quite a lot of complicated effort to do his test… and it still wasn’t enough, right?

There is a standard HR corporate line is that we don't pay for effort but results.

 

[Salt]

You like to make it complicated, right?

You really did read all that text, texted into an IPhone?
Respect! For myself I skip these 'Essays', as someone else named it some time ago.

 

[AudioSceptic]

If Josh were actually interested in finding the truth, he wouldn't be deterred by petty offenses (and he'd share his data). It's very hard at this point to believe that he is operating in good faith at all.

Sorry, I've tried to read the salient posts here but there's just too much to catch up with, so can you point me to where that emerged?

 

[MattHooper]

You really did read all that text, texted into an IPhone?
Respect! For myself I skip these 'Essays', as someone else named it some time ago.

If you don’t like essays, here’s the short form:

For any particular claim, or blind test, how much is enough in order to accept the results?

And for individuals doing blind tests at home:

is it ever justified to accept the results of a blind test we individuals attempt at home? And on what grounds?

This would be reasonable and relevant questions. Don’t you agree? I’m interested in your thoughts.

Cheers

 

[oleg87]

You can conclude whatever from your own results you want. But if you do not have a significant measure of technical expertise in this field, you need to understand that conducting tests with robust controls outside the purely software realm is not trivial. I would say electronics laypeople are not qualified to do it.
For my part, I would need a trusted technical expert with an adversarial position to the whole subjectivist thing to be able to examine the setup and see the test happen on that validated setup, throw his hands up and say "all bases are covered". This is, of course, a high bar for this sort of testing.

 

[AudioSceptic]

You can conclude whatever from your own results you want. But if you do not have a significant measure of technical expertise in this field, you need to understand that conducting tests with robust controls outside the purely software realm is not trivial. I would say electronics laypeople are not qualified to do it.
For my part, I would need a trusted technical expert with an adversarial position to the whole subjectivist thing to be able to examine the setup and see the test happen on that validated setup, throw his hands up and say "all bases are covered". This is, of course, a high bar for this sort of testing.

IOW, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, ;-)

 

[AndyBell]

IOW, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence

Some evidence would be nice, in this case