Sorry to hear you're not well, hope you get well soon. I can think of better ways to spend my convalescence!
Well, the constant headache has gone, dizziness has reduced as has the slumbering delirium which interestingly is always themed around the medication. How much scarring I'm left with remains to be seen but my face, neck & throat look revolting.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
I have to admit I do find this topic interesting - its one of the best in hifi and also one of the easiest to resolve.
imo - try various cable usually its no great spend anyway ( the best cable I have cost £25 - its a single coax and only a metre long, but its paid for itself in terms of satisfaction)
but all I can add to this thread is try the QED interconnects upto the Performance range - £40, its good.
There lies the contradiction - if it's easy to resolve, why hasn't it been? When I say "resolve", I do mean for all factions. Some arguments do go away, few people still proclaim the world is flat.
I think there are subtle variations on ABX tests but the one I've participated in we were not told exactly what we were testing. We were told that we were going to listen to various pieces of music more than once, that we could take notes, request repeats discuss what we thought, advised to concentrate on one particular aspect when comparing etc. Not strickly ABX but a varient. We were told at the end that we were listening to 3 different music server solutions including a bog standard HDD at varying bit depths.
My understanding of a double blind test is an ABX test (or very similar) where the person conducting the test is also unaware of the exact order of the tests though they will probably have to know what's being tested! The idea being that the testers cannot deliberately or sublimably influence the subjects or be seen to influence the subjects. Sighted formal tests are a complete joke that no self-respecting music lover should defend if they have any respect for impartiality.
I, like many have conducted sighted comparisons at home. These do require a degree of caution to reduce Expectation Bias such as:
Deciding what we want to achieve & to be honest with ourselves - leave that axe in another room!
Acknowledging the principle of bias exists & the probability that no one is immune
Change one thing at a time
Undo any changes
Redo the changes
Not to take the process too seriously - have breaks & have fun
Consider long-term tests that last days, not minutes if possible
In conducting these comparisons with other interested parties, consider introducing blind tests (if only to gauge what difference it makes!)
My suspicion is the the shorter the test period the greater is the likelihood for confusion which may seem counter-intuitive & might also be wrong! The reason for suggesting it is because I've noticed differences months after changing something when I haven't been listening for them but have got confused when listening over minutes such as in a showroom. My opinion is that any who thinks they have perfect ears, are never biased & can pick out the the make of connectors being used are probably fooling no one apart from themselves.
I know I've bored on about this before, but I'll just repeat one point that I think is important re. the various pieces of evidence from blind tests of hi-fi. AFAIK all these tests have been carried out by hi-fi amateurs or engineers (who are of course excellent folk and experts in their own field), but none of the tests (AFAIK) have been done by properly trained psychologists.
There's a lot of scientific literature on "sensory evaluation testing" (taste, smell, hearing etc). It's a very difficult thing to get the set-up of the tests right (as @busb suggests above). I don't think any of the hi-fi tests have properly taken account of these difficulties. I'd love to be proved wrong on this, because I do really believe that blind testing has a role to play in hifi.
OK, rant over.
That was a rant?! You are a subtle guy!
I've started reading the links Ben has mentioned (thanks IDC):
On face value they weaken my argument that the ABX test method is flawed but depends on how sophisticated those tests were (I'm still reading). However, I may reach the point where I need to acknowledge the evidence is just too great but not yet!
On the subject of sensory perception, loads of research is available apart from loudness such as weight, pressure etc:
This suggests that many perceived increases such as a doubling may, when measured, require a factory of 3. The term logarithmic is used. This doesn't necessarily mean to base 10 but non-linear in some fashion. Some newer research:
One thing is very clear: doing such research is rather tedious, takes dedication, takes hundreds of volunteers, takes time & isn't cheap to carry out. An academic body such as a university seems the obvious choice who could include statisticians& perceptual psycholgists. The obvious question to ask is whether or not the research has already been done to the degree where nit-picking is pointless!
There is no contradiction - people are stubborn but its all down to just listening.
A few years ago I was into gaming during the last generation of consoles (Xbox & PS2) the biggest debate at the time on the forums I visited was frame rates the differences between 30fps & 60fps. At the time I argued the consoles were now powerful enough for all games to run at 60fps regardless of genre.
Some claimed they could see no difference between the two framerates. But on a decent tv it was clear the 60fps was cleaner, smother, brighter and more detailed - while by comparison 30fps was duller looking, jerkier with visual artifacts such as the moire effect etc. Now in the forums the 'I see no difference' brigade would argue the non difference - some I'm sure would put their naked forearms into an open flame rather than admit to differences - when all one had to do was run two games back to back to see the difference.
I think the interconnect argument is the same - if many of the naysayers would actually be willing to sit down in an uncontrolled test - no level setting nonesense - and listen to cables the argument would be settled without a problem ....actually did I say think?....no, I know it would be settled.
.....and yet it hasn't!
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
it's not the same at all. Plus, uncontrolled settings means you could do anything to make a difference between the cables. Feel free however to arrange such a test, blog it and point us in the direction of what you have done.
Actually, another question. How does ones acutally listen to cables? Personally I listen to the music coming out of the speakers...
30fps vs 60fps? A very obvious physical difference wouldn't you say? How surprising that 60fps is smoother given that 60fps is regarded as the minimum refresh rate required by a decent monitor.
So still happily ignoring all that's been said about level matching, expectation bias etc. and living in your alternative universe where the laws of physics were written by yourself.
Few people are claiming that there are no audible differences whatsoever, it's more a case of are the differences imagined, due to level differences or psycholgical factors. You just choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit in with what you believe. An audiophile Jehovas witness.
An audiophile Jehovas witness.
Or just 'audiophile'?
You need to point that at yourself - I have challenged you already just you me and some cables anywhere - I know you will eat those words. I have no fear of losing what so ever, you may make the excuse its your 'sonic illusion' and any other excuse supposidly proven by science you may care to make. But straight up I challenge you........
I'm taking everything thats been said to date and still I dare you....sadly not this sunday as there is a Grand Prix on..... but what do you say?
You too Cheeseboy.........
Uncontrolled just means we get a source a pair of speakers an amp, set the amp to its optimum level put in a CD and listen. only thing we change are the interconnects and pls don't, your 'music' has to pass through these bits of wire before you hear it unless its live - what we are trying to determine is are there any differences to what we hear.....some of you guys, I swear
I know....its crazy.
...and I challenged you to listen to the audio illusions. No need to go anywhere, just listen to them and tell me if your ears were fooled, yet you don't seem to have done that. wonder why?
i'd love to take you up on your offer, but I don't live in the uk...
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing