Just how legit is this person's blind test results?

[julian_hughes]

I'd be in for the measurements and technical analysis.
As mentioned, ideally would be on-site, in-situ...

You send enough money and I'll do it any way you like lover boy.

 

[KSTR]

So let me see if I have this right: some guy on the internet claims to have done something that is known to be impossible from decades of repeatedly verified research, and we're supposed to take it seriously?

Okay, whatevs.

Someone says he reliably hears a difference which might be actually true but we would like to know what is responsible for the successful ABX. It could be hidden/false clues, it could be even cheating (or the whole story being made up) but it could also be a surprise and then things could become interesting. This requires professionalism etc from both sides which is not what we are seeing. With an us-versus-them attitude (from both sides, mind you) no progress will ever be made, rather a honest joint effort would be needed.

 

[KSTR]

You send enough money and I'll do it any way you like lover boy.

Looks like you misunderstood my offer. See post above.
I'm willing to pay shipping costs from/to my location in case there is interest for thorough investigation. But a closer look only makes sense if we manage to achieve a sort of "certified" positive ABX results, obviously.

 

[julian_hughes]

Someone says he reliably hears a difference which might be actually true but we would like to know what is responsible for the successful ABX. It could be hidden/false clues, it could be even cheating (or the whole story being made up) but it could also be a surprise and then things could become interesting. This requires professionalism etc from both sides which is not what we are seeing. With an us-versus-them attitude (from both sides, mind you) no progress will ever be made, rather a honest joint effort would be needed.

Nicely expressed. Rational. Be careful.

 

[julian_hughes]

Looks like you misunderstood my offer. See post above.
I'm willing to pay shipping costs from/to my location in case there is interest for thorough investigation. But a closer look only makes sense if we manage to achieve a sort of "certified" positive ABX results, obviously.

Yeah, I was just being an asshole, sorry. On a more serious note I think it would be an excellent thing if multiple different people could perform ABX or blind tests on these two headphone amplifiers. It's already quite interesting that the manufacturer makes both and clearly thinks the discrete circuitry one is preferable even while the op-amp version maybe measures a bit better. People are getting really upset with purr1n, and he is a person easy to dislike (I can't stand him btw), but he has done something rather interesting by describing his method and performing the tests and putting the results up. If I had £300 of spare money (I do not) I'd be tempted to attempt the same. Unfortunately I am 56 and am developing tinnitus so am not the right person to do this. But if anyone wants to send me money that is also good.

 

[solderdude]

Looks like you misunderstood my offer. See post above.
I'm willing to pay shipping costs from/to my location in case there is interest for thorough investigation. But a closer look only makes sense if we manage to achieve a sort of "certified" positive ABX results, obviously.

Ah yes, but then there will be the questions like:
What level Harman training did you reach. (there is one member always asking this as if it matters)
Are you an experienced listener and what is the experience ?
Is you age below 30 ? (hearing declining)
Can you post your recent audiogram (as if that would matter ?)
Who says your hearing is as discriminate as that of guru [insert name].
Is the test witnessed and by who(m) and is it logged/recorded ?
Measurements... are they all complete including those from the used transducers.
Can we trust you to not have an agenda (hidden or not) ?
Have you tried it with this or that load ?
Did you use the best music and music source ?
What was the listening level, the temperature, the air pressure, your health ...?
Did you allow a time period ?
Did you test for preference instead of differences (Thor will ask that question for sure) ?

So many obstacles. No matter what it is impossible to please everyone or the ones that need convincing.

Funny thing is most peopl blindly trust their favorite reviewers. Marvin is one of those ... within his circle and groupies.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now it would be really easy to use an actual speaker as test load and not switch between channels but simply record them at say... 192/24 and then analyze/listen/compare later.
It is basically nulling but without one channel being inverted.
All that would be needed is a potmeter of say 1k to pad the speaker output down and a recording device. Maybe one would need galvanic separation between both inputs (balanced inputs)

It would be one way to do it. And such files make doing a nice blind test in software a breeze. What it doesn't do is make this so convenient to listen to any music you want, change volume as needed and basically use the system completely as normal other than switching the DUT in and out of circuit. Back then when I did this, also in the 1990's, I already via experience knew quick switching was the way to go for hearing finer differences. And these listening comparisons were sighted for me sometimes single blind for friends.

I did find some amps that neither I nor my friends thought sounded different than straight wire. Most at least single blind people could hear as different. The first one that seemed fully transparent to us was a Spectral DMA 50. That is a low noise, wide bandwidth amp, but THD+N was only -84 db at rated power.

 

[julian_hughes]

Ah yes, but then there will be the questions like:
What level Harman training did you reach.
Are you an experienced listener ?
Is you age below 30 ? (hearing declining)
Can you post your recent audiogram (as if that would matter ?)
Who says your hearing is as discriminate as that of guru [insert name].
Is the test witnessed and by who(m)
Measurements... are they all complete including those from the uesd transducers.
Can we trust you to not have an agenda (hidden or not)
Have you tried it with this or that load ?
What was the listening level, the temperature, the air pressure, your health ...?
Did you allow a time period ?
Did you test for preference instead of differences (Thor will ask that question for sure) ?

So many obstacles.

I can meet all those requirements* and satisfactorily answer all those questions*. Please send money now.


*by lying.

 

[solderdude]

How much do you need so I can not make such a transfer of hard earned funds.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I can meet all those requirements* and satisfactorily answer all those questions*. Please send money now.


*by lying.

Would you accept SVB stock in lieu of payment in cash?

 

[Newman]

Looks like you misunderstood my offer. See post above.
I'm willing to pay shipping costs from/to my location in case there is interest for thorough investigation. But a closer look only makes sense if we manage to achieve a sort of "certified" positive ABX results, obviously.

You are taking him seriously. He’s pulling your leg. He then put me on ignore for suggesting he stop. See what we are dealing with? He’s not worth your time.

 

[julian_hughes]

Paper cash money only. How much you got? That's how much I need. Both Objectively & Subjectively. I aim to please.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Paper cash money only. How much you got? That's how much I need. Both Objectively & Subjectively. I aim to please.

Not sure how much is there, but I have this much. Is it enough?

 

[Newman]

Someone says he reliably hears a difference which might be actually true but we would like to know what is responsible for the successful ABX. It could be hidden/false clues, it could be even cheating (or the whole story being made up) but it could also be a surprise and then things could become interesting. This requires professionalism etc from both sides which is not what we are seeing. With an us-versus-them attitude (from both sides, mind you) no progress will ever be made, rather a honest joint effort would be needed.

Now you are taking him seriously. What part of his test do you think hasn’t already been done better by people with less bias and better quality of method?

I don’t “want to know what is responsible for the successful ABX”, because he doesn’t want to know. What part of his test report is the part where he says, “what other possible explanations are there for my success, other than each amp having a signature sound, because all amps have their signature sounds?”

The question, of whether audio electronics that is designed to be audibly transparent actually is audibly transparent, is an answered question, and the answer is YES. People who dispute that are engaging in denialism. And they are doing it for an honest reason: they don’t understand the Sighted Listening Effect and don’t believe that it could possibly be strong enough to explain the differences they perceive when listening to gear in a casual setting. That’s it.

The chances of their being “something interesting here” are stupifyingly low. Yes it’s not zero chance, but we need to use our time wisely, not chase every random guy’s bad blind test to the end of the world. If there was any realistic chance of there being something interesting in this question, then audio researchers would be interested and do it properly. But they aren’t interested. You know why? Because the chances of the prior knowledge being wrong, which indicates they are audibly transparent if the maker intended it, are too low to bother.

Cheers

 

[julian_hughes]

That'll do. Thanks. Any advantage is a good advantage.

 

[SIY]

The analogies to things like pharma testing are misguided- maybe. People arguing here- and the guy who posted the original claims- kinda slid by the first and most important step. For ANY sensory test, the FIRST step is to state in advance, "What is the specific question to be answered?" And everyone (including the guy who posted that test) skipped right by that. That statement is what guides the experimental design, not vague analogies to (for example) pharma testing. Excerpting from an old article:

When we are trying to evaluate the subjective sonic impact of a design choice, we need to first define what it is we are trying to find out:
1. Can the consequences of this choice be heard by me?
2. Can the consequences of this choice be heard by an average listener?
3. Can the consequences of this choice be heard by anyone?
4. If the answer to 1, 2, or 3 is“yes,”then which choice is preferred?

This seems trivial, but it’s not- it’s a natural tendency among audiophiles to want universal answers. As a result, the boundaries between these questions get blurred- each of these questions is quite different from the others, and naturally, the means by which they can be answered is also quite different.

And of course, the question of, "How can I demonstrate to others that I can hear XYZ?" requires yet a different experimental design.

 

[Galliardist]

The analogies to things like pharma testing are misguided- maybe. People arguing here- and the guy who posted the original claims- kinda slid by the first and most important step. For ANY sensory test, the FIRST step is to state in advance, "What is the specific question to be answered?"

I thought I'd included this in one of my posts, but no.

Seems to have only taken 15 pages to get to a key point. We need collectively to raise our game here!

 

[julian_hughes]

That question was clear and obvious from the start. Can a person in a blind test distinguish a discrete headphone amp from an op-amp headphone amp?

 

[julian_hughes]

Now you are taking him seriously. What part of his test do you think hasn’t already been done better by people with less bias and better quality of method?

I don’t “want to know what is responsible for the successful ABX”, because he doesn’t want to know. What part of his test report is the part where he says, “what other possible explanations are there for my success, other than each amp having a signature sound, because all amps have their signature sounds?”

The question, of whether audio electronics that is designed to be audibly transparent actually is audibly transparent, is an answered question, and the answer is YES. People who dispute that are engaging in denialism. And they are doing it for an honest reason: they don’t understand the Sighted Listening Effect and don’t believe that it could possibly be strong enough to explain the differences they perceive when listening to gear in a casual setting. That’s it.

The chances of their being “something interesting here” are stupifyingly low. Yes it’s not zero chance, but we need to use our time wisely, not chase every random guy’s bad blind test to the end of the world. If there was any realistic chance of there being something interesting in this question, then audio researchers would be interested and do it properly. But they aren’t interested. You know why? Because the chances of the prior knowledge being wrong, which indicates they are audibly transparent if the maker intended it, are too low to bother.

Cheers

Your very first sentence is an ad hominem. And emphasised too! Your third paragraph is an amazing expression of bias. He didn't perform a sighted listening test yet you condemn him for doing so. That is neither objective nor rational. This kind of reaction maybe plays well but it could hardly be less credible.

 

[SIY]

That question was clear and obvious from the start. Can a person in a blind test distinguish a discrete headphone amp from an op-amp headphone amp?

And that is an example of a fuzzy question.