Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

Callas wrote:

Your example and reasoning are poor.

It seems to me that your assertion is generalised in nature, but carries an
assumption about the listener that doesn't neccessarily apply in all cases.


To begin with, with audio equipment, the listener has paid for and so
wishes to perceive improvements in the sound to which he is listening.

We think like that with most things we buy, but we aren't always fooled by
our own hopes - I see no reason to assume that we will be when we buy audio
equipment.


There is no such parallel in your example; you are in no way
considering the desire on the part of the subject to perceive that
his exciting new piece of equipment makes a difference.

I'm saying that the desire does not neccessarily exist; at least not to the
extent of skewing one's opinion to the point of thinking that the 'poorer'
kit sounds 'better'. I don't deny that such psychological skewing exists,
but it doesn't seem a sound basis for a general proposition.


Next, the example given describes very strongly different flavours.
You are correct to state that I would certainly perceive the
differences. The sensory input from the two stimuli are *so*
different there is no mistaking them.

Its purpose was to convey the point that the original post compared the
sound qualities of a cheapo player and a decent DAC. The differences were
clear and present, not the subtle minutiuae that require 'critical'
listening. It seems to me that the notion that "non-blind tests are
inherently unreliable" is of low applicability in this case.

Some of the improvements I mentioned became apparent when I was doing
something else and not paying attention to the music. The clarity of strings
came about this way - I was sitting at the computer (out of the listening
area and behind one of the speakers) and I kept hearing little ticks and
squeaks. Being a newly-arrived piece of digital equipment, I wondered if it
was maybe some sort of digital artefact, until I paid more attention and
realised that I was hearing bowing noises. I *really* don't think the detail
in the strings was noticed because I wanted to feel that my spend had been
worthwhile. Indeed, I suggest that the difference really was there, and that
it was the fact that a difference was there that caught my attention.


The problem with audio comparisons is far subtler. The differences
sensory input can be small - and indeed, non-existant. As differences
become smaller, it takes a increasingly skilled listener to perceive
them reliably. Lesser listeners will fail outright in the first
place, or find that their subjective desire to perceive improve
generates a fake difference which is in fact greater than the real
difference.

As I said, I don't dispute that this happens.


I have to say also that given your emotive response in this matter, I
suspect you're being dogmatic;

I wouldn't do a thing like that, would I? ;-)


... this is a subject about which you have Opinions.

No, I don't have "Opinions" on the subject, although I do wonder at the
point in engaging in such involved analysis of minute differences in bits of
kit. I dare say the value of such analysis is a function of the listener's
propensity towards having a skewed opinion for whatever arbitrary reason.


Have you tried blind testing yourself?

Not as an arranged thing with someone else pressing the buttons; not that I
can remember, anyway.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

With something as subjective as the perception of sound, non-blind
tests are inherently unreliable.

Bull****.

No, it's true.

There are cases when the notion that non-blind tests are "inherently
unreliable" just doesn't wash. I'm sure that, if "Callas" was fed a
spoonful of ****e, and a spoonful of sugar, s/he/it would be able to
establish which is the ****e and which s the sugar, and could do so
regardless of whether or not they were blindfolded. Indeed, even if
one were to conduct a hundred such tests 'eyes-on' and a hundred
blind, I bet the result would be consistent and reliable.

That's not the same as comparing reasonably good DACs.

Do try to make your comments relevant to the topic described in the title
line, eh?

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

With something as subjective as the perception of sound, non-blind
tests are inherently unreliable.

Bull****.

No, it's true.

There are cases when the notion that non-blind tests are "inherently
unreliable" just doesn't wash. I'm sure that, if "Callas" was fed a
spoonful of ****e, and a spoonful of sugar, s/he/it would be able to
establish which is the ****e and which s the sugar, and could do so
regardless of whether or not they were blindfolded. Indeed, even if
one were to conduct a hundred such tests 'eyes-on' and a hundred
blind, I bet the result would be consistent and reliable.

That's not the same as comparing reasonably good DACs.

Do try to make your comments relevant to the topic described in the title
line, eh?

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message

Callas wrote:

Your example and reasoning are poor.

It seems to me that your assertion is generalised in nature, but
carries an assumption about the listener that doesn't necessarily
apply in all cases.

That's horsefeathers. The topic in the title line limits the discussion.
Your example was totally irrelevant.


Basically you're flogging a deception along the lines of: "Look over there,
cake".

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message

Callas wrote:

Your example and reasoning are poor.

It seems to me that your assertion is generalised in nature, but
carries an assumption about the listener that doesn't necessarily
apply in all cases.

That's horsefeathers. The topic in the title line limits the discussion.
Your example was totally irrelevant.


Basically you're flogging a deception along the lines of: "Look over there,
cake".

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:56:56 -0000
"Wally" wrote:

With something as subjective as the perception of sound, non-blind
tests are inherently unreliable.

Bull****.

I suspect what you meant to say was that a non-blind test isnt
necessarily invalid in terms of testing gross changes ;-)

For tiny changes on the threshold of perception, you must use blind
testing.

In your case it was 'crap DVD player' vs 'decent DAC' which isnt
exactly a subtle difference ;-)

That would depend on what you consider to be a "crap DVD player", no?

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:56:56 -0000
"Wally" wrote:

With something as subjective as the perception of sound, non-blind
tests are inherently unreliable.

Bull****.

I suspect what you meant to say was that a non-blind test isnt
necessarily invalid in terms of testing gross changes ;-)

For tiny changes on the threshold of perception, you must use blind
testing.

In your case it was 'crap DVD player' vs 'decent DAC' which isnt
exactly a subtle difference ;-)

That would depend on what you consider to be a "crap DVD player", no?

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message


It seems to me that the idea of blind testing is that it assumes the
listener is unable to separate what he hears from what he thinks he
hears - that the piece of kit that is considered to be 'better'
actually does sound better to him, and that blind testing eliminates
such preconceptions or biases and permits a more impartial comparison.

That is a well known fact in the cases where the difference is subtle or
controversial.

While I realise that a biased opinion can occur in a non-blind test,
I don't think it's neccessarily so.

Depends on the size of the difference.

If there is a detectable
difference between, say, the sound of a ride cymbal played on two
different bits of kit, then that difference must be a detectable one,
regardless of whether or the listener knows which bit of kit is being
used. Were it otherwise, then the difference wouldn't be detectable
in either kind of test.

Again, you are running way wide of the topic at hand.

In other words, the problem isn't some inherent drawback in the
nature of a given test, but in the approach or attitude of the
tester.

The problem primarily depends on the size of the difference. There are many
cases where people have estimated low when they estimated the size of the
difference, and were later on highly embarassed or at least mislead.

That notwithstanding, it's my view that, by the time the
differences are so small that blind testing is deemed to be
neccessary, then the differences are so small that they're neither
here nor there.

There is quite a bit of middle ground. If you want to experience it for
yourself, please visit www.pcabx.com.

In your case it was 'crap DVD player' vs 'decent DAC' which isnt
exactly a subtle difference ;-)

I refer the honourable gentleman to my later posting, in which I
bring ****e and sugar into the discussion. :-)

Most just ****e.

It's clear that you're speaking quite hypothetically about blind tests - you
don't have any relevant audio experiences. I've just told you how to get
wised up for free and in complete privacy.

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

"Wally" wrote in message


It seems to me that the idea of blind testing is that it assumes the
listener is unable to separate what he hears from what he thinks he
hears - that the piece of kit that is considered to be 'better'
actually does sound better to him, and that blind testing eliminates
such preconceptions or biases and permits a more impartial comparison.

That is a well known fact in the cases where the difference is subtle or
controversial.

While I realise that a biased opinion can occur in a non-blind test,
I don't think it's neccessarily so.

Depends on the size of the difference.

If there is a detectable
difference between, say, the sound of a ride cymbal played on two
different bits of kit, then that difference must be a detectable one,
regardless of whether or the listener knows which bit of kit is being
used. Were it otherwise, then the difference wouldn't be detectable
in either kind of test.

Again, you are running way wide of the topic at hand.

In other words, the problem isn't some inherent drawback in the
nature of a given test, but in the approach or attitude of the
tester.

The problem primarily depends on the size of the difference. There are many
cases where people have estimated low when they estimated the size of the
difference, and were later on highly embarassed or at least mislead.

That notwithstanding, it's my view that, by the time the
differences are so small that blind testing is deemed to be
neccessary, then the differences are so small that they're neither
here nor there.

There is quite a bit of middle ground. If you want to experience it for
yourself, please visit www.pcabx.com.

In your case it was 'crap DVD player' vs 'decent DAC' which isnt
exactly a subtle difference ;-)

I refer the honourable gentleman to my later posting, in which I
bring ****e and sugar into the discussion. :-)

Most just ****e.

It's clear that you're speaking quite hypothetically about blind tests - you
don't have any relevant audio experiences. I've just told you how to get
wised up for free and in complete privacy.

Added a DAC to a cheap CD player - and got a result
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

That's not the same as comparing reasonably good DACs.

It certainly isn't.


Do try to make your comments relevant to the topic described in the
title line, eh?

The topic described in the title line is one that I started, in which I
compare a cheap CD player with a reasonably good DAC. Callas's point would
have been rather more applicable if I was comparing two reasonably good
DACs. Which I wasn't.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar