Older seperates vs new system
 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:25 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you backing
off your comments about 'cable sound'?

Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you
that the subject is "dac sound" :-)

You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were
the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first
place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard
we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?


Can you explain why you specifically do NOT want the levels equalised?
Do you really not want the test to maximise your chances of actually
hearing the difference?

If you don't match levels, you are doing two things that are unhelpful
- first you are making the test virtually impossible to perform, and
second you are going to get a result which you can't trust.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Older seperates vs new system
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:25 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

From your comments you clearly have guts of jelly - or are you
backing
off your comments about 'cable sound'?

Touch of Alzheimers there, Stew. Let me remind you
that the subject is "dac sound" :-)

You rather than me, or a touch of bull**** there, Alan, since you were
the one who made the comment about me and cable sound in the first
place. You have of course proved yourself to be the gutless blowhard
we all know and loathe, when called on your £1,000 DAC sound bet.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?


Can you explain why you specifically do NOT want the levels equalised?
Do you really not want the test to maximise your chances of actually
hearing the difference?

If you don't match levels, you are doing two things that are unhelpful
- first you are making the test virtually impossible to perform, and
second you are going to get a result which you can't trust.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it
every time :-)

Alan

Older seperates vs new system
 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:48:58 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it
every time :-)

Alan


What do you mean by quieter - less background noise or less volume? If
the volume is less, then in use you would compensate by turning the
wick up a bit and end up with the same volume again. So to compare
quality you would still need to equalise the sound levels.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Older seperates vs new system
 

If you have hands, the ability to use them and a spare moment you could
build a kit loudspeaker from the likes of Wilmslow or Falcon, IPL etc and
have much better bang for the buck.

Older seperates vs new system
 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:24 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison
- all good salesman know that..................

Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a
$16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume
control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd
chicken out when actually called on your bull****.

I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but
the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it
just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't
rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF
X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to
make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the
trickery obvious.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it?
I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?

Stop lying, you simply said that you could tell the difference between
the player and the DAC. I'm not talking about equalisation, I'm
talking about the *volume* levels being the same. Any idiot (that
would be you in this case) can tell the difference between two items
which have different output levels.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Older seperates vs new system
 

I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Smeghead's leg, he seemed distracted by:
If you have hands, the ability to use them and a spare moment you could
build a kit loudspeaker from the likes of Wilmslow or Falcon, IPL etc and
have much better bang for the buck.

Once upon a time, that was true.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

Older seperates vs new system
 

I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Tat Chan's leg, he seemed distracted by:
John Laird wrote:

My next upgrade would be improving the conditions
of my listening room.

Contraception. It's too late now!

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.

Older seperates vs new system
 

Triffid wrote:
I took my dog out for a walk.
While it was ****ing on Tat Chan's leg, he seemed distracted by:


My next upgrade would be improving the conditions
of my listening room.


Contraception. It's too late now!


???????????????????????????

Older seperates vs new system
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:24 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to
achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of
three
won't do!

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison
- all good salesman know that..................

Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a
$16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume
control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd
chicken out when actually called on your bull****.

I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but
the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it
just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't
rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF
X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to
make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the
trickery obvious.
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it?
I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?

Stop lying, you simply said that you could tell the difference between
the player and the DAC. I'm not talking about equalisation, I'm
talking about the *volume* levels being the same. Any idiot (that
would be you in this case) can tell the difference between two items
which have different output levels.
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

You're not very bright, are you, Pinkie?
I've placed my original question, earlier in this thread, below in
quotes. Read this carefully and try not to mouth the words as
you are reading them as this can inhibit understanding.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing
the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical.

I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my
music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player
SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC
203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances."
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's simple enough isn't it? What is it that you don't
understand? What is confusing you?

Your crude and patronising approach to subtle audio
differences, offering a paltry sum of money to take part
in an A/B test that masks all but gross differences, is doing
the industry a disservice and is as distasteful as snake oil,
IMHO.

Oh, and next time you accuse me of lying have the guts to
say it to my face and not cowering behind a keyboard.

Alan

Older seperates vs new system
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:48:58 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

Because the DAC is much quieter and I can identify it
every time :-)

Alan


What do you mean by quieter - less background noise or less volume? If
the volume is less, then in use you would compensate by turning the
wick up a bit and end up with the same volume again. So to compare
quality you would still need to equalise the sound levels.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Both, but I was just trying to make a point really, Don, about
the difficulty of establishing proper procedures when testing
sensory descrimination. In the visual field, with which I am
familiar, very slight alterations in test procedure, such as
seperating contiguous samples by a few mm or so can
decrease discrimination of colour difference by an order
of magnitude. Presenting the samples, in series, in A/B fashion,
further greatly decreases discrimination depending on the time
interval between viewings. The differences are still there of
course but are masked by the method of testing.
Resort to instrumentation is not helpful in judging differences
below about 5 - 10 jnd's, depending on position in colour
space, due to the acuity of the visual system. I suspect the
same holds true for auditory differences.

Alan