Great article about "Audiophoolery"

[Scuzzer]

Because ABX test have 'proven' that all amps sound the same.

No they haven't. There are generally tons of caveats surrounding amp statements regarding the design and specifications.

Obviously a low powered SE tube amp and a high powered 70s receiver are most likely going to sound very different from each other. If the two amps measure the same (I'm talking distortion spectrum and everything) then they might have a chance of failing an ABX. The speakers play a role here so the measurement into a passive resistor load might not be what you get with an active speaker load.

 

[RayW]

You mean the Carver challenge? That's not DBT/ABX and it started with 2 amps that everyone agreed sounded different.

 

[Mister Pig]

John didn't take umbrage, why should you? I'm not interested in your ideas of good taste nor in your finger-wagging lecture.

[IJohn didn't take umbrage, why should you? ][/I]

Because John is for more good natured and easy going than I am.

[I I'm not interested in your ideas of good taste nor in your finger-wagging lecture.][/I]

Ain't got no fingers. Pigs have hooves daddy-o.

I'm not interested in your ideas of good taste

As I have little patience for insults and belittlement to some well intentioned and kind posters on AK. Adding nothing of value to a thread aside from belittlement curls my tail. Call them like I see them, thats how we do it on the farm.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[--@H@B-->]

Point by point: We never purchased an ABX comparator for several reasons. First, we have never felt the need for it. Second, we are finding that, regardless of "controls," an A/B test doesn't reveal small differences between components as well as does prolonged listening. (Yes, one can listen for prolonged periods to A, B, or X, but when one can obtain the same results without a comparator, who needs it? We find enough consistency in the independently-prepared reports of our various reviewers to pretty much rule out "prejudices" or selfdeception.)

We take our component testing very seriously so much so that we frequently go back and relisten to products reviewed months previously. We rarely find any reason to change or qualify the original report. (And when we do, it gets published as a "Followup."—J. Gordon Holt

 

[bshorey]

We are are an informal internet forum. He is writing an article that pretends to have some legitimacy. I pretend no such thing.

No, he's relaying his experiences, and the conclusions that he's drawn from them. There's a difference between that and publishing a research paper.

Of course, I've seen plenty of fully referenced research papers that completely conflict with other fully referenced research papers on the same topic. Try to follow either side on the global warming debate, for example.

In this case, all the guy did was relay what he's learned, through his experiences, for a site whose sole purpose is skepticism.

bs

 

[rfolden]

Thanks, daddy.

No peeking at nameplates/the merchandise during double-blind.

If you see the nameplate, any results are invalid. Also, you need something like 12-16 trials IIRC to have a valid result set. Statistically, you'll guess right 50% of the time.

The "amps" test is, essentially: "all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped."

Not saying it could not be done, but I would very much like to meet someone who could beat this test consistently. Or at all, for that matter.

The neat thing about America is that you're free to spend as much or as little as you like. My daddy always told me "If it sounds good to you, buy it. YOU are the one that has to listen to it."

 

[Scuzzer]

They've also proven that higher bit rate MP3s are indistinguishable from WAV files.

Has someone proven otherwise? I think that mp3/wav tests are a great way of utilising the ABX tool and provide a lot of insight into what we can hear. Whether mp3s sound like the original wav file is largely irrelevant to modern listening now however.

 

[rfolden]

No, he's relaying his experiences, and the conclusions that he's drawn from them. There's a difference between that and publishing a research paper.

Of course, I've seen plenty of fully referenced research papers that completely conflict with other fully referenced research papers on the same topic. Try to follow either side on the global warming debate, for example.

In this case, all the guy did was relay what he's learned, through his experiences, for a site whose sole purpose is skepticism.

bs

It's not "global warming" any more.

It's "climate change".

Of course the dang climate changes.

Not only that, there is 100% chance of weather tomorrow.

 

[opt80]

And now the end is near....