I think this above speaks volumes.
Gents, no point in arguing with dogma. Leave him to it.
Dogma?
This was not a bright comment...
I think this above speaks volumes.
Gents, no point in arguing with dogma. Leave him to it.
Its entirely accurate. Your commentary so far is entirely typical of the "subjective audiophile" who refuses to recognise the proven science which contradicts their entrenched beliefs.Dogma?
This was not a bright comment...
However I think one needs some experience in blind testing before he can actually get to the point of having really equal mind state regardless of sighted or blind. It's not something ensured when it's relatively new. It's a different situation and with the different situation you can easily expect a different mind state than usual.
What you say is completely true. But you can't escape the human nature, which is prone to making conclusions and creating 'facts'. If no difference is confirmed through the blind test, human nature will take this as 'there is no audible difference'.
Something else escapes here. Blind tests do not only include hearing a difference. To audiophile, it's also about a preference. So, if audiophile claims he heard a difference in a blind test and he preferred device A in front of device B, would you find value in his judgement of preference, since it can be quite different to your preference? Or would you just find worth in hearing a difference but completely dismiss a personal choice 'which sounds better'?
I agree, but many audiophiles care for smaller differences too, not just the huge ones.
The yt link I put, I wanted to hear whether other people like the sound which I like to.
I like the sound from the yt a lot. I presume there is really good mic job beneath and obviously a good sound recording too. But all this won't ensure good sound if the system beneath have a good sound.
And that's the reason why I put it. I really wanted to here whether others like as well what I like. Obviously my impressions were sighted but I wanted blind listening impressions from the others to say whether they like it too.
But to me it looks like the others are for some reason afraid to write down their blind impressions of this sound and stand behind them. I don't understand quite why because as you said, there are no valid conclusions from this and there can be no personal judgement too. It was meant to be the only thing which was said, solely about a sound preference.
What about blind results when listeners didn't know they were being part of a blind test?Furthermore, even blind listening impressions are not reliable. They might be more reliable than sighted impressions because of avoiding bias induced by knowing what's in system, but they're not completely reliable because the nature of listening is subjective. There's no even guarantee that blind listening should be more reliable than sighted listening because of a different mind state when blind listening and sighted listening. Especially when blind test is done in a situation when a person might fear he/she will be judged by the results and a personal reputation will be in the line.
This is harder than it sounds. Making system recordings. I've a few I could share (or I think I still have them). You'll have a very different idea of the overall sound depending upon where I put the microphone. I even have an idea of where I can place them and give a reasonably close to how it sounded live result. It could tell you something, but it is rather limited.I didn't want to argue about the preference.
I was curious about it.
And it's not even important if to me if it sounds different in the nature. I was currious about impression of how that specific audio sounds to the others.
And yes, in case when it's a decent mic'd audio, my opinion is it will say something about the sound. It won't say it all, it can't give a completely accurate impression as when listening it live, but it can still present some of its quality. Make an audio of a lousy sounding system, you won't be able to make it sound nice. Or at least not unless you DSP it or similar.
If I can't detect differences in a blind test over multiple attempts, I am comfortable making the conclusion that I can't hear the differences. I wouldn't reach that conclusion for anyone else but me. If I hear differences when sighted, I can make no such conclusions.
Yes, this is a good point. If someone adds a subwoofer and say the bass is more abundant I doubt we need a blind test. If they added a new power cable to their amp and tell us it was so much better in the bass it was like adding a subwoofer, we'll need a measurement or blind test to give this any credence.Indeed, often for differences so small that they cannot actually be heard, only imagined...
That there is only a 5% probability that the result was from random guessing. If you repeat it and get 70% again, chances are less than 1% it is a lucky result instead of a perceived difference.Do you ever reach inconclusive % after series of blind test, and what do you do if this happens?
Make twice as much repetitions?
What if no polarization towards either 50% or a high % should emerge?
Say, you do 30 repetitions and have a 70%...what would you conclude?
Sorry, I didn't get back on your linked video as I asked for the link a second time. Unfortunately I clicked on the link and saw the video meaning I didn't hear it blind.
I think the sound you have there is good, enjoyable, a bit smoothed over in a pleasant way, but commensurate with tubes being involved. Would I have thought that blind? I think so, but I bungled hearing it blind first.
What about blind results when listeners didn't know they were being part of a blind test?
That there is only a 5% probability that the result was from random guessing. If you repeat it and get 70% again, chances are less than 1% it is a lucky result instead of a perceived difference.
Well one I can think of is unintentionally self inflicted. A few audiophile friends gathered trying out a new DAC one of us had. Took over and hooked into a good system with both new and old DAC going thru a preamp so we could switch. Listened to the owner's DAC. Swapped to the new one. During the swap over during discussion and checking levels were about the same we then listened to the new DAC. Discussion about how it sounded different, whether or not it was better, the consensus was a pretty good improvement overall. Then it was noticed during the level checking it was left on the original DAC for both presentations accidentally. We all reached a firm consensus on the new DAC's improved qualities and even described them more or less the same. Except we hadn't heard the new DAC. A little egg on our faces.You should describe the scenario, I'm not sure what's your idea.
I did the quick short cut calc on what is significant. It might be off one choice worth, but it is basically correct.I agree completely (without checking the probability, I trust you calculated it right).
But I get the notion some folks here acknowledge only results pretty close to 100%, if not 100%.
Yes, this is a good point. If someone adds a subwoofer and say the bass is more abundant I doubt we need a blind test. If they added a new power cable to their amp and tell us it was so much better in the bass it was like adding a subwoofer, we'll need a measurement or blind test to give this any credence.
I'm lazy, really, to care for setting up a blind test. But it's not all. This process is boring. I'd rather allow myself to make a mistake than do this as a usual routine when choosing equipment. There is in fact even more reasons....
I prefer to tell them, in highly technical language, how the extra bass from the power cord is very likely to overload both woofer and tweeter. You might blow the woofer (you hear the extra bass right?), but people are less sensitive to the high treble, and it only makes sense the power cord has increased the high treble. So it could burn out a tweeter. There is a good reason your amps didn't come with a 'dangerous' power cord like this in the box.Or just slap them around a bit and say dont be so silly
But if the benefit of Filterless NOS is all due to the ultrasonic content, anyone listening to that video through a DAC with a filter will have nothing special to hear. Hell, maybe even the codec used when adapting that recording for YouTube has already thrown out all ultrasonic content. In this case your test proves nothing (even if the effect you're talking about is real, you've nullified it by uploading to YouTube, and if not the listeners will nullify it themselves by listening with a filtered DAC).The yt link I put, I wanted to hear whether other people like the sound which I like to.
But if the benefit of Filterless NOS is all due to the ultrasonic content, anyone listening to that video through a DAC with a filter will have nothing special to hear. Hell, maybe even the codec used when adapting that recording for YouTube has already thrown out all ultrasonic content. In this case your test proves nothing (even if the effect you're talking about is real, you've nullified it by uploading to YouTube, and if not the listeners will nullify it themselves by listening with a filtered DAC).