Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:KT62c.50154$ko6.396612@attbi_s02... S888Wheel wrote: What validation test and results would prove that DBT is not working? It sounds to me as if this an important piece of information in order to get this discussion any further. That is easy. One can insert something that will generate a *known subtle audible difference* into the random samples. What's a *known subtle audible difference* that *hasn't* been determined by controlled comparison methods? Any examples you'd care to offer? Yes. Look at the big differences in the responses of various CD-players to single frequency test tones and how little difference, if any, can be heard. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:foa2c.54359$PR3.1032290@attbi_s03... (Nousaine) wrote in message ... (Mkuller) wrote: With cable swaps not one of 9 hard-core, experienced audiophiles (and one female junior high school teacher) could reliably differentiate those systems in single listener listening tests with nothing more than the loudspeaker terminals being covered with a black cloth. IMO if amp/cable/tweak differences are soooo subtle that a blanket, covering terminals wtihout any acoustical effect, will "mask" them from the perception of experienced audiophiles,then they aren't important enough for serious audio enthusiasts to worry over. I might point out that using the Stax Lambdas with a transformer is much more revealing than speakers. Listening to Sax Lambda's through the Sax SRO-7 "Adaptor for Earspeaker" reveals absolutely nothing about how a loudspeaker sounds with that given amp, if it would yield any sound at all. There is no carry-over from the results with the Stax Earspeaker and those with a *LOUD*-speaker. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:gQK1c.458979$I06.5174464@attbi_s01... Perhaps I should be asking you a more important and meaningful question: In the time it requires to carefully unwire and re-wire two different amps (avoiding any "shorts") how is it possible to have the exact mental picture of their differing sound characteristics. I repeated the trials several times. Additionally the amps under test comparison cannot be called upon to put out anything near that used to drive most loudspeakers to any reasonably loud level. So what use is any headphone listening test? Huh? I would be using the selected amp with these headphones. I also connected them to and listened to the speakers, which showed similar, but less dramatic differences. You appear to be suggesting that headphone listening provides a better and finer test in revealing an amp's characteristic. However in casual loudspeaker listening an amp might easily be "pushed" ten times harder than in headphone listening, at which level any Stax headphone would fry. At those low levels required for headphone listening I don't believe anything at all is revealed of its sound *or even its* ability to drive a loudspeaker such as a big 3-4 ohm resistance Maggie needing a hefty amp. A 20 watt Kenwood receiver could easily deliver more than sufficient juice to drive a Stax headphone but couldn't get a big Magnepan off the ground. Been there, done that, more than 30 years ago when the flimsy Stax SRD-7 "Adaptor for Ear Speaker" first appeared in the marketplace. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Ro32c.47749$ko6.395005@attbi_s02... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:KvQ1c.44925$PR3.895219@attbi_s03... As it happens, a very long time ago, before the scales fell from my eyes, a group of us actually did try a very carefully controlled experiment involving 6 CDs from the same batch of pressings of Dave Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', played through Naim electronics into Epos ES11 speakers ( the shop demo system of the guy who owned the record store which naturally had lots of those discs). The 'green penned' discs sounded exactly the same as the untreated discs - although a couple of the original batch were rejected because for no known reason they did not sound the same as the other four. Scarpitti's claim is extraordinary at best. The Stax Lambdas allow one to hear things that most transducers do not. What is 'extraordinary' is their clarity. With these devices, I can hear the difference on some CD's, with the green-pen treatment. Can you also hear the effects of demagnetization and Armor All treatment? Enid Lumley heard effects produced by the position of her kitchen water faucet. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:10:48 GMT, "Frank O. Hodge"
wrote: Some $5000, for telling cables apart? Perhaps five cables, 60 seconds for each audition (because the differences will be subtle but obvious), 25 permutations, a couple of pots of coffee and associated breaks, and there's merely a light afternoon's work. All I infer is that I've got to guess them right, one time only, not that I've got to write a memo or any such thing. You have to tell two cables apart and get it right 15 times out of 20, that's all. Under double-blind conditions, and with the voltage at the speaker terminals matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No biggie for any two reasonably normal cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
What validation test and results would prove that DBT is not working?
It sounds to me as if this an important piece of information in order to get this discussion any further. That is easy. One can insert something that will generate a *known subtle audible difference* into the random samples. What's a *known subtle audible difference* that *hasn't* been determined by controlled comparison methods? Any examples you'd care to offer? This seems like a strawman complaint. I never said that the "known subtle audible difference" had to exist outside the thresholds of human hearing that has been established in well documented scientific studies. |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
|