Or in the very limited physical ability of human ears to discern a small difference in acoustic signal.That’s fine. The other factors are in human’s brain, definitely there are no other factors in the electric signal.
Or in the very limited physical ability of human ears to discern a small difference in acoustic signal.That’s fine. The other factors are in human’s brain, definitely there are no other factors in the electric signal.
As such, the ABX has generally a "human" as the detecting element. So bottom line, we need to calibrate our ABX test too.
I do not claim that the general ABX methodology is inherently flawed or problematic, only this specific subset, which is however what is normally meant in conversation here..
Did I claim I was being "scientific"? I used certain tools provided by science to provide a foundation for an engineering decision. The test was formulated hence to provide this kind of result. Controls were applied to make sure that the test results were reliable, or as Richard Feynman says, we do not fool ourselves, which is the easienst thing to do.
I defend my observation, the right to make my observation and to write: "I made this observation in such and such a manner and this what I observed."
Friendly advice: if you want to tell fairy stories, your life here will be Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short. Fairies may fly, but fairy tales don't.
If you're not interested in evidence and getting to the reality of issues, why in the world would you participate in a science-based forum?
To me ABX is to have the ability to compare X to A and B (and when one made up their mind chooses A or B as being X.
I don't care about "Audio ABX" or whatever company.
There is no need to calibrate anything. You either compare an unknown (X) to A and B and decide. This can be preference as well when you have a preference for B or A.
Maybe we're talking about a different ABX. For me it is the method.
I object to the conclusion that 140 SINAD and 120 SINAD would be the reason for the 140 to be 'boring'
and by extension that technical excellence (signal fidelity) and preference do not do hand in hand.
Without giving any reason other than... we found. This creates the idea for readers that, because you stated this, only the gear in question that does not have the highest signal fidelity is preferred, specifically your design.
Wonderful advice.Friendly advice: if you want to tell fairy stories, your life here will be Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short. Fairies may fly, but fairy tales don't.
Nowhere did I ever claim I was a 'scientist' nor a scientist.I am sorry, but I'm not taking responsibility for a lack of basic reading comprehension among self proclaimed "scientists".
Here the wikipedia page:
Well, that is NOT what I wrote.
So he's speaking for a lot of people. I more or less agree, although eventually I just put the "magical claims" people on ignore. But they catch a lot of flack, it is true.Wonderful advice.
Thank you for his polite words.
Here one should be writing about iFi.So he's speaking for a lot of people. I more or less agree, although eventually I just put the "magical claims" people on ignore. But they catch a lot of flack, it is true.
Ultimately it is up to @amirm and his moderators whether untested subjective claims are encouraged or allowed here, it is his site. However, it is pretty clear that the majority of the frequent commenters prefer to have at least one place on the Web where the discussion is less cluttered with that stuff.
You said you "liked the sound quality", not just features and build quality. That implies, directly, that you could tell it apart from other DACs by sound quality.I just wrote that I bought the DAC and I like it.
That I don't need a scientific explanation to like it.
Now do I need to scientifically prove that I like the sound quality?You said you "liked the sound quality", not just features and build quality. That implies, directly, that you could tell it apart from other DACs by sound quality.
Exactly, here is to write about this DAC.It could simply be that he just liked how it sounded and wanted to just give his opinion ?
That's how I read it.
He prefers it over other DACs. There could be a myriad of reasons for that.
Exactly, here is to write about this DAC.
I bought it and I liked it, simple as that.
It seems to me your very first comment on this DAC has gone well beyond a simple statement of "I like this thing".Forget this question of SINAD numbers.
Buy an iFi and be happy.
I have the ZEN One Signature with an extremely nice sound.
There was a person asking about this unit and another DAC.It seems to me your very first comment on this DAC has gone well beyond a simple statement of "I like this thing".
Nowhere did I ever claim I was a 'scientist' nor a scientist.
A bit disappointed (t.b.h.) in your assertion which is not based on any facts other than how you prefer to see things, seeing as it must be addressed to me as it was a reply.
It says: An ABX test is a method of comparing two choices of sensory stimuli to identify detectable differences between them.
I am not a scientist, nor will I do meta analysis of the theory behind it with false negatives, forced decisions etc.
What I find 'unpleasant' is the whole attitude and conclusions surrounding this considered 'fact'.
Of course not, but it's also not a parameter I would 'forget entirely' when making a purchasing decision on a DAC.There was a person asking about this unit and another DAC.
So as I liked it I gave the suggestion.
Even because I think this device has not been evaluated.
For you, does having a high number on SINAD mean indisputable quality?
You generalized your individual personal preference - that is the key point of this recent discussion - and for making such a generalizing remark, I would want to see evidence (not so about a statement where you would have said - I like it others might not).There was a person asking about this unit and another DAC.
So as I liked it I gave the suggestion.
Even because I think this device has not been evaluated.
For you, does having a high number on SINAD mean indisputable quality?