Complete Snakes**t ?
Bedroom: Sonos ZP90, Cyrus DAC XP+, Cyrus X Power, KEF LS50's
Living Room: Linn Majik DS, Marantz UD7006, Arcam AV9/P7, PMC FB1i fronts, TB2i centre, DB1i rears
Thanks for a rational, well written and intelligent analysis of the value of "double blind" testing.
IMHO it is the speakers that make the difference, every thing else is peripheral to varying degrees, with surfaces way down the list at the vanishingly small to absolutely no effect end of the spectrum.
Sonos Connect, Cyrus DAC XP Signature with PSX-R
Cyrus Mono X 300 Signature, Wilmslow Phoenix with Bass Extenders.
IDC is pretty much spot on imo.
The day I stopped chasing the rainbows of SQ improvements with cables, stands, expensive sources etc was the day I started to enjoy music a whole lot more.
So now I run some actives (ADMs) and a pair of Dali Ikon6 from a cheap AV processor utilising the DACs in that. They previously ran from £2000 worth of Amp and DAC, and if I am honest...there's little or no difference in SQ.
I think people want their equipment to be better than the cheaper alternatives so much, that it actually is.
So long as your amp can drive your speakers to a level you like without clipping and so long as your bits arrive intact then the only thing that really matters is the quality of the speakers.IMO.
“Out beyond ideas of wrong and right, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
Aparently (Chineese water snake) snake oil is higher in Omega 3 than Salmon. The problem with the name came from 'snake oil salesmen' not actually including snake oil in the products they sold.
I expect snake oil would work quite effectively in an LP12 bearing well.
Rega RP6/DV20X2L/Rega Aria/Naim CD5XS/Flatcap XS/Naim NAT05XS/Naim Supernait 2/Dynaudio 1.8-II
Nah - too much sibilance.
Audio inverted snobbery?
And what about what your ears tell you? Or is it just about clipping, and amp power etc.
Sorry Frog, but this is the least logical post I have read for ages, and in all time from you.
JRiver MC17 -> Cambridge Audio DACmagic+ -> Roksan Caspian M2 -> ProAc D18
Yes, I agree that with digital the differences in sources can often be small in relation to price and so therefore it makes a lot of sense to see speakers a priority and work backwards (which is the opposite of what traditionally is recommended), however the old rule of rubbish in rubbish out is still very much a good one when it comes to analogue sources like turntables, arms and cartridges where the audible differences between cheap and expensive can be extreme.
Thorens 166 BC MkVI turntable, Origin Live Alliance tonearm, Goldring 2200 cartridge; Opera Consonance 120 Linear CD player; Denon DNP-720AE media player; Sugden Mystro amplifier; MS Aviano 8 speakers.
No, the point is, if you believe one thing is better than another, then it is "to you". It's a proven psychological phenomenon. As idc's post earlier correctly states that blind testing reveals less differences than sighted.And it isn't that people "make it up". They do genuinely hear differences where there are none.
And of course the power/clipping is an oversimplification, but any differences due to other factors than lack of power/current are usually tiny compared to changes in speakers or listening environment.
As for trying to change the sound by swapping cables and supports...utter waste of time imo.
And it isn't that people "make it up". They do genuinely hear differences where there are none.
I want to clarify something. People genuinely do hear differences with sighted tests and they are real differences to them. It is what causes the differences that is the issue. If you can show inherantly a certain hifi product like a cable cannot affect SQ, the cause of hearing a difference is then elsewhere.
"Product sound quality judgments are based on perception of both acoustical characteristics and various non-acoustical factors."
"The consumers’ prejudices, i.e. their simplified evaluations of Japan’s and Singapore’s respective ability to produce CD-players influence the consumers’ assessments of quality. This influence is sufficiently strong so as even to distort objectively like qualities (sound quality of a CD-player) in the consumers’ minds"
Internet - laptop - DAC - amp - lots of headphones.
"A music lover will stop what he's doing and stay glued to a favorite piece of music even if it's coming over a 3" speaker or a public-address system..." - Ken Rockwell
No, the point is, if you believe one thing is better than another, then it is "to you". It's a proven psychological phenomenon. As idc's post earlier correctly states that blind testing reveals less differences than sighted.
The problem I have with this, is not this view per se, but the fact that it stops any further investigation and experimentation. This unshakable belief that one is right, with no room for doubt whatsoever, doesn't entertain the possibility of being wrong!
Just like us poor deluded souls who think differences exist because we've heard them, those on the other side of the debate, have a mindset that almost certainly precludes the hearing of a difference, even if there is one. It will most likely be written off as expectation bias etc. In other words, it could be argued that "negative" expectation bias is at work here; except it isn't seen as such, as it's put down to being "impossible".
IDC, if I remember correctly (btw no malice intended), used to have a different view, and heard beneficial differences of mains cables, until he submerged himself in the whole area of "correct" testing and and expectation bias. Now he will (probably as soon as he sees this) make exceedingly informed and well written arguments to support his side of the debate, and there is nothing wrong with that; but it is my worry that it's like studying only one side of the argument and so is building in an imbalance.
I suspect that if a survey was done on here, the people who can hear differences are in the majority, with sceptics joining the darkside almost weekly. Now this doesn't prove anything in itself, but imo shows that this issue is far from being an "open and shut" case.
What I have said above is simply my view and is meant to be thought provoking rather than confrontational....and I expect I will be told I'm completely misguided!
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
Arguably, the problem with your approach is that it is analogous to the Christian fundamentalists in America saying creationism ought to be taught in schools in the interests of 'balance'.
Edit: I should say, I don't think you're wrong in arguing there are differences in SQ when it comes to sources with analogue outputs and amps (which was Fr0g's point); I do think the way you make the argument is hazardous, and that it can be used in relation to things like digital cables, which I do not think make a difference.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
Lol... it always boils down to this,....
I actually agree with CNO Evil, but from my own experience differences are more pronounced in unsighted test (my own personal tests anyway). thats one reason for the suggested same equ no change test previously. I also think its the minute changes to a piece of music that make the biggest differences.
in general all amps 'sound the 'same' as do all CD players and other sources, but its the ability to produce those little things that really makes a difference like picking up the leading edges on a piano or guitar then being able to hear the degredation or the seperation in the percussion or picking up really low frequencies.
These are not night and day differences but its what I believe is what all the fuss is about in HiFi....a note lasting 2.723 sec on one system via a certain interconnect on one surface as opposed to 2secs flat, thats what we hear and thats what the differences are though we won't admit it...well some of us anyway.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing