Double Blind test: Analogue Vs Digital : Interesting read :)

[arjn]

Came across this article in another forum

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Seems to have been written in 1984.

What do you guys feel ?

 

[wolfgang]

Would you like to comment first? I have read this and the other articles inthat linka few months ago, not sure what you are getting at.

 

[arjn]

The process of testing seemed to be pretty "Unusual" with an attempt to be scientific.

I was curious on the ABX device and was looking to learn froùm comments on if it really would do a analogue Vs digital compariosn well enough ( DACs can have signatures of their own)

But without criticising the process, the end results were surprising and that is what I found interesting. i have always been under the impression that Analogue does sound better. hence if a test in inclusive, does it mean

1. Analogue and digital both sound good and it is all in the mind

2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

 

[notaclue]

arjn wrote:

i have always been under the impression that Analogue does sound better. hence if a test in inclusive, does it mean1. Analogue and digital both sound good and it is all in the mind

No. It wasn't an analogue v digital test as such. The point that Professor Lipshitz was making was that the 16-bit Sony digital processor was audibly transparent. It could not be heard.

Ivor T claimed digital was bad and sounded terrible. Professor Lipshitz was perplexed by this. He says that he had found nobody who could hear digital. Let alone someone who could hear it and find it horrible.

The processor was inserted in a analogue system. According to Prof' L, it should make no difference as it had no sound that could be heard. According to Ivor T, it would make the system sound 'digital' and 'bad'.

Ivor T failed to back up his claim and was unable to demonstrate the ability to hear what he had claimed.

 

[Effem]

arjn wrote:

The process of testing seemed to be pretty "Unusual" with an attempt to be scientific. I was curious on the ABX device and was looking to learn froùm comments on if it really would do a analogue Vs digital compariosn well enough ( DACs can have signatures of their own)

But without criticising the process, the end results were surprising and that is what I found interesting. i have always been under the impression that Analogue does sound better. hence if a test in inclusive, does it mean

1. Analogue and digital both sound good and it is all in the mind

2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

Number 2 is the closest to the true situation.

Trouble with current measurement techniques is that aside form straight frequency response, decibelor distortion measurements the measuring equipment isn't anywhere near as good as the human lughole.

Things like imaging depth, spatial information, dynamic resolution and dozen other sonic cues the ear/mind can pick up with ease, totally bamboozles the equipment we have now which is usedto carry out the measuring.

HENCE WE HAVE ENDLESS FIRKIN' DEBATES ABOUT CABLES

 

[mosfet]

1. Analogue and digital both sound good and it is all in the mind2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

Neither. Read notaclue’s summary. The measuring devices used were human.

 

[Kiang]

Effem wrote:

Trouble with current measurement techniques is that aside form straight frequency response, decibelor distortion measurements the measuring equipment isn't anywhere near as good as the human lughole.

Things like imaging depth, spatial information, dynamic resolution and dozen other sonic cues the ear/mind can pick up with ease, totally bamboozles the equipment we have now which is usedto carry out the measuring.

HENCE WE HAVE ENDLESS FIRKIN' DEBATES ABOUT CABLES

True

 

[Boxer]

And I agree too: do we know exactly what we should be measuring in the first place? If we don't then ........ well, all becomes somewhat speculative and even subjective.

If you can hear a difference it's real for you, and then you can work out if you want to label it an improvement or not.

To qoute whoever it was "if it feels good do it!".

Boxer.

 

[Effem]

mosfet wrote:

1. Analogue and digital both sound good and it is all in the mind2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

Neither. Read notaclue’s summary. The measuring devices used were human.

Well then you are both wrong because the only thing that Ivor T can ever hear clearly is the sweet rustle of money

 

[wolfgang]

arjn wrote:

The process of testing ....................... attempt to be scientific. I was curious on the ABX device ............................

1. .....................

2. .................. ..

From the above few responses you should do well to remember next time one but never ever mention the word scientifc or for that matters ABX. I am beginning to notice a clear pattern. As soon as it is mention almost all forums members' brains go into short circuits and unable to product any reasonable discussion. They almost without fail just lauch into some autopilot ranting about everything as crap and useless.

 

[dudywoxer]

I really do not undersatnd all this, If you like the sound of something listen to it, if you don't, then don't. I quiet like digital sounds, as in CDP, and I quiet like analogue, so I listen to them both. I sometimes think I hear a difference with cables, and i sometime think I don't. It may be how I feel in general on a particular day. Why the hell it has to proved to a third party is beyond me, It's my money, my system, my house, If I am happy what the hell does it matter. Mr Linn obviously got what people wanted, and more importantly were prepared to pay for, so wrong he never could make anymoney out of it. And I do not own Linn.

 

[Hawk]

Are you watching this bommer

as my friends the Kaiser Chiefs say...

Watching the people get lairy

Is not very pretty I tell thee

.........La-ah-ah, la la lalala la

Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala la

I predict a riot, I predict a riot

I predict a riot, I predict a riot

:sw:

 

[Guest]

dudywoxer wrote:

I really do not undersatnd all this, If you like the sound of something listen to it, if you don't, then don't. I quiet like digital sounds, as in CDP, and I quiet like analogue, so I listen to them both. I sometimes think I hear a difference with cables, and i sometime think I don't. It may be how I feel in general on a particular day. Why the hell it has to proved to a third party is beyond me, It's my money, my system, my house, If I am happy what the hell does it matter. Mr Linn obviously got what people wanted, and more importantly were prepared to pay for, so wrong he never could make anymoney out of it. And I do not own Linn.

wot he said ^^^^

 

[Pio2001]

arjn wrote:

2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

Are you saying that when the listener says that he is listening to inputA while the amplifier input is set to B, it is the listener who is right and the amplifierswitchthat is wrong ?

Effem wrote:

Number 2 is the closest to the true situation.

Trouble with current measurement techniques is that aside form straight frequency response, decibelor distortion measurements the measuring equipment isn't anywhere near as good as the human lughole.

What do measurment techniques have to do with this listening test ?

boxer wrote:

And I agree too: do we know exactly what we should be measuring in the first place? If we don't then ........

But why are you all talking about measures ? We're talking about a listening test ! Measures don't have anything to do with the topic of the discussion.

dudywoxer wrote:

I really do not undersatnd all this, If you like the sound of something listen to it, if you don't, then don't.

Fine, but there are people who pretend that two differentCD playersshall sound different. Countless ignorant listeners are buying expensive gear just on these accounts. And when they complain that the sound is not improved, they are eithertold that the device must be burned-in in order to work properly, or that their cables are not transparent enough for the difference to be audible, and that they have to buy even more expensive stuff, while the fact is just that their new CD player sounds the same as the old !

 

[dudywoxer]

Pio2001 wrote:

arjn wrote:

2. Testing process no matter how elaborate will not get near the truth ..

Are you saying that when the listener says that he is listening to inputA while the amplifier input is set to B, it is the listener who is right and the amplifierswitchthat is wrong ?

Effem wrote:

Number 2 is the closest to the true situation.

Trouble with current measurement techniques is that aside form straight frequency response, decibelor distortion measurements the measuring equipment isn't anywhere near as good as the human lughole.

What do measurment techniques have to do with this listening test ?

boxer wrote:

And I agree too: do we know exactly what we should be measuring in the first place? If we don't then ........

But why are you all talking about measures ? We're talking about a listening test ! Measures don't have anything to do with the topic of the discussion.

dudywoxer wrote:

I really do not undersatnd all this, If you like the sound of something listen to it, if you don't, then don't.

Fine, but there are people who pretend that two differentCD playersshall sound different. Countless ignorant listeners are buying expensive gear just on these accounts. And when they complain that the sound is not improved, they are eithertold that the device must be burned-in in order to work properly, or that their cables are not transparent enough for the difference to be audible, and that they have to buy even more expensive stuff, while the fact is just that their new CD player sounds the same as the old !

and that ferkin concerns me How

 

[hifidelity]

pio2001

can i ask what cd player you own?

 

[Pio2001]

A Yamaha CDX-860.

But I use a PC with a Marian Marc 2 soundard, MME drivers, and an SPDIF output in order to feed a Sony DTC55ES deck (asDAC), for listening to music.

 

[hifidelity]

thanks for the straight answer pio2001

for some unknown reason,most sceptics don't reveal what equipment

they own.might be just me though.

i remember sometime last year reading a group test of cd players in hifi choice

and the "blind panel" named not once,but twice the brand of cd player (naim cd5i).

maybe we could ask them to repeat the test with a few sceptics present and

put this whole argument to bed(unless everyone thinks they lied)

 

[Pio2001]

Naming once, twice... this does not proves anything without a detailed account of the test. Here is what sceptics are waiting for : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295&

The "great cable debate", though not designed for this purpose at the beginning, will allow to perform an evaluation of the results based only on the sound of the cables. In other words, if everyone guess right, it will prove that they heard a real sonic difference between the cables.