Don’t feed the troll guys. I came to this conclusion after reading his responses here. Peace out
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Equal measurements is not the same as equal sound quality
- Thread starter MagnusH
- Start date
- Status
But I'm bored at work... please?
- Thread Starter
- #83
You can't prove anything with a blind test, at most you can show that one person seems to hear a difference. And you can't even show (and far from prove) equality. From a scientific point of view, its worthless.
And stop calling me a troll just because you run out of arguments, I haven't trolled anything in this thread, but kept it based on personal opinion and facts about science and proofs (which I happen to know something about). I see a lot of other people trolling though, trying to make me look silly or insulting me because I hit a nerve.
But here is a fact, and this is a fact no matter who tells it: there is no proof that sound quality can be determined by measurements, which means any claim that sound quality can be determined by measurements is based on assumptions and faith.
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,634
- Likes
- 12,142
The irony..... it hurts...
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
OK, so prove that at least. lol...since you know, that's what your entire argument is based upon.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #86
I can prove it with a couple of examples:
1. I do a blind test, and I have 5 of 10 right. Does that mean it sounds equal? No of course not, it might not even mean I think it sound equal, but there and then, with the selected music and listening length, I could not reliable tell them apart.
2. I do a blind test, and score 10 out of 10. This could mean one of two things, I either just "got lucky" or I actually did hear a difference. But even if I did hear a difference, and I perceived that difference to be a step up in sound quality, others might not be able to tell them apart, of they might hear a difference but can't determine if that difference is an improvement or not.
To sum it up: blind tests are worthless as a scientific tool (for most people its more reliable than normal listening tests though).
Here is how I do my sound testing: I listen to the new equipment a couple of days, then I switch back and listen a couple of days, and at that stage I can usually determine what sounds better (if not, its so close that no blind test would help). This works for me (and works better than blind testing unless that blind tests stretches out for at least a day), but it might not work for everyone.
But sometimes its very easy to hear differences, and in those cases a shorter listening session will suffice. Comparing a DAC like Yggdrasil with for example the Pro-Ject DAC is such a case, a few minutes is enough. And yes, I would score 10 out of 10 in a blind test, provided it was known music (and probably even with unknown music).
Which leads us right back to the start of this thread: in my opinion, and based on my listening, measurement does not (always) tell the whole truth about sound quality. Others might not agree with that, but any claims that they have science on their side is wrong (see earlier posts about that).
Actually I wonder how anyone who knows what a blind test is could make such a statement.
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
1. you can choose your own music. You can listen as long as you like. The test, if properly set up, allows you to determine if you are actually hearing a difference between the DACs. It doesn't matter if you can identify which is which. Just that you are able to reliably hear a difference. YOu do an A/B/X test where you compare A & B to X and try and identify which of A or B is X. The test is random. X is always either A or B...you identify which. If you can do this reliably, you've proven there is a difference and you can hear it.
2. If you get 10 out of 10 right doing a properly set up test, you didn't just get lucky. But why limit the test to 10? Do a hundred...
Jess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 5
[QUOTE="to sum it up: blind tests are worthless as a scientific tool"[/QUOTE]
This is one of the few scientifically correct statements I have read so far in this thread.
Many audio enthusiasts kling to a rather archaic notion of scientific methodology especially when they talk about a/b testing. The human ear is not an objective measuring device. People tend to have brains in between their ears which makes that exercise rather subjective. Even any one person cannot honestly believe that he/she can hear the same thing twice even if the sound is exactly the same. Our brains do not register information like robots, so the second time you listen to something you 'hear' something new. I am not saying such test aren't interesting at all, but believing they provide some sort of hard proof is simply unscientific.
Talking about quality when it relates to music should be a gracious exercise, because listening to music is always (also) a matter of the heart.
If we take 'quality' to mean something scientific, then we should first define what it means exactly in this context. That would take the pain out of the discussion maybe.
In short: one up for MagnusH
This is one of the few scientifically correct statements I have read so far in this thread.
Many audio enthusiasts kling to a rather archaic notion of scientific methodology especially when they talk about a/b testing. The human ear is not an objective measuring device. People tend to have brains in between their ears which makes that exercise rather subjective. Even any one person cannot honestly believe that he/she can hear the same thing twice even if the sound is exactly the same. Our brains do not register information like robots, so the second time you listen to something you 'hear' something new. I am not saying such test aren't interesting at all, but believing they provide some sort of hard proof is simply unscientific.
Talking about quality when it relates to music should be a gracious exercise, because listening to music is always (also) a matter of the heart.
If we take 'quality' to mean something scientific, then we should first define what it means exactly in this context. That would take the pain out of the discussion maybe.
In short: one up for MagnusH
What you also described is unscientific: full of perception bias. The point of DBT volume matched test is to eliminate all other factors not auditory as to get rid of any perception bias of any kind
Sgt. Ear Ache
Major Contributor
once again...le sigh. 
- Thread Starter
- #94
Yes, but here is the thing: I never claimed I had proof or used science, it was others that kept hammering about how un-scientific I was and how I lacked proof. Thats why I also showed that there is no proof in neither blind testing nor if measurements can measure everything the ear can hear.
Volume matching is very important for shorter listening or A/B testing, even a 0.5dB increase will lead to the music sounding with more details and and clarity.
Until you actually perform a level matched, (.1 dB) unsighted comparison it is very difficult to believe that two components that you previously perceived as sounding different are actually indistinguishable.
If you can reliably pick a difference then you decide at length in any manner you choose which you prefer.
Keith
If you can reliably pick a difference then you decide at length in any manner you choose which you prefer.
Keith
Greetings to our newest member!
Your argument is juvenile, attention seeking and unconstructive. It serves no one here or audio in general.
Imo you are just creating argument for your own amusement, you've shown absolutely no desire to engage in any constructive discourse whatsoever.
others are free to disagree with this however it comes down to me to put a stop to things as it's a waste of everyone's time.
I don't believe this is the forum for you, your contributions are thoroughly inane.
This account is suspended.
Interviewer: Would you say for yourself that you are a decisive person?
Me: Yep, that's me. But not always, of course. In fact.. May I have some more time to rethink my answer?
- Status
