Jump to content
IGNORED

Who's afraid of DBTs


Recommended Posts

I am not afraid because

 

1. Those same "objectivists" who always claimed that increasing the sampling frequency far above and beyond 44.1 kHz for playback is "useless" are still largely, due to their own Confirmation Bias no doubt, failing to acknowledge recent DBT results referred to in AES Convention Paper 9174, and

2. Je suis Charlie.

If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.
Link to comment
I am not afraid because

 

1. Those same "objectivists" who always claimed that increasing the sampling frequency far above and beyond 44.1 kHz for playback is "useless" are still largely, due to their own Confirmation Bias no doubt, failing to acknowledge recent DBT results referred to in AES Convention Paper 9174, and

 

Would that be the paper that says that if you purposely use an overly-steep filter and no / rectangular dither, that people can barely pick out the difference?

Link to comment
The only way I could find to make that work was creating either JPEG or GIF images, and that sure was clumsy, compared to something more familiar like TEX.

-Paul

 

No more excuses, Paul: Formula Sheet

 

 

An online formula renderer that accepts TeX code. You don’t even need to sign up.

 

 

Click the button at bottom left to pop up the Editor, enter your TeX expression, click Render on right: a PNG is presented which can be dragged to desktop then uploaded to this forum. Easy peasy.

 

 

formulasheet.png

 

Link to comment
I'd go further and say they are close to useless at that. But they are very good at telling if there are objective, measurable differences in sound. As you hear it during those precise few seconds. That's surely different than as you hear from the couch with a wine. But the absolute sound differences exist independently of your couch and wine :)
Hold on - you're assuming that there is a difference running throughout the piece so that when you switch over at any point in time, it is immediately noticeable. This typically is not the case - differences only show under particular conditions or in particular parts of an audio piece. So now we have the situation that we have to first find these areas of difference & this is done sighted. The blind test is just a verification process - the real sensing of differences has been done sighted. Some people just don't need the verification step - they are expert enough to know that they are seldom mistaken.

 

Look at the honest example firedog gave - he can tell the difference between mp3 & RBCD sighted - he doesn't need a blind test to verify this - others do to prove to themselves it is real but once they have done so they will no longer use a blind test, they will hear the difference sighted.

 

So I suggest that A/B blind testing is not a tool for discovery of differences (this has already been done sighted) - it is a tool for those who need verification.

 

 

Most science experiments are flawed. I'd say the vast majority. Does not disqualify the methods. At all. And even some of the most clueless DBTs are better than 'my wife heard it too' :)
Ah so you are suggesting, in best scientific thinking, that we should ignore the flaws in the test & go with it because you suggest that it is better than another flawed test? How do you evaluate this superiority of one flawed test against another?
Link to comment
Hold on - you're assuming that there is a difference running throughout the piece so that when you switch over at any point in time, it is immediately noticeable. This typically is not the case - differences only show under particular conditions or in particular parts of an audio piece. So now we have the situation that we have to first find these areas of difference & this is done sighted. The blind test is just a verification process - the real sensing of differences has been done sighted. Some people just don't need the verification step - they are expert enough to know that they are seldom mistaken.

 

Look at the honest example firedog gave - he can tell the difference between mp3 & RBCD sighted - he doesn't need a blind test to verify this - others do to prove to themselves it is real but once they have done so they will no longer use a blind test, they will hear the difference sighted.

 

So I suggest that A/B blind testing is not a tool for discovery of differences (this has already been done sighted) - it is a tool for those who need verification.

 

 

Ah so you are suggesting, in best scientific thinking, that we should ignore the flaws in the test & go with it because you suggest that it is better than another flawed test? How do you evaluate this superiority of one flawed test against another?

 

Who said DBTs are for finding differences? Highly doubt it was me. As far as I know they are designed - exactly as you said - mostly for confirming differences. You somehow hear whatever difference or just hear/read about it somewhere and in order to be sure you do a DBT. Or at least a simple BT. You may use DBTs for finding differences too but that may not be the most efficient way. And if no one ever heard a difference, why would you go DBT-mode to see if there was any? These things take time & resources and are not particularly fun.

 

As about the superiority of DBTs, guess I could have qualified that better. In my book a DBT includes at least a few other people with different backgrouds/mindsets and a few other pieces of equipment to test against. It is also DB. If it fails any of that, I dont even call it a DBT. There may be major flaws in running that DBT or processing/interpreting the results but it's still better than "me and my wife in the couch 'testing' one amp".

Link to comment

WOW!! THANK YOU!!

 

-Paul

 

 

No more excuses, Paul: Formula Sheet

 

 

An online formula renderer that accepts TeX code. You don’t even need to sign up.

 

 

Click the button at bottom left to pop up the Editor, enter your TeX expression, click Render on right: a PNG is presented which can be dragged to desktop then uploaded to this forum. Easy peasy.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16614[/ATTACH]

 

t9v678igr4r9pe9jqan5833c12prformula.png

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
It surely makes you more sympathetic :)

 

That's an interesting account of the visual-sound experience. That kind of stuff is not coming so often into my daily experience. And rarely when not explicitly cued. Maybe because I am the kind who enjoys keeping his mind on a very rational level. If I decide to tune-in though, all that sensorial fireworks you describe comes in spades. Colors, sound, smell and sometimes even almost tactile experiences. And I do enjoy night time music sessions with lights off and lots of induced visuals.

 

I rarely tried to use that in my comparisons though. Those I mostly kept on the rational, max focus level. Guess one may call that DBT-style. However, did try some of that feeling-based comparisons. For example between foobar and jriver. Cued one favourite album on one player. Did listen in relax mode one-two times for a few hours. Few times I even forgot what I was doing and just enjoyed music. Then switched the playe and repeated. No differences. Neither audio, nor visual, nor feelings. Not immediately after switching, not along the way. Nada. Same beautiful sound and music.

Tried that only a few times. But it kinda convinced me that if I dont hear differences in the focused DBT-style, I wont hear anything when relaxed either. Admitedly my 'proof' is based on a few trials only and is therefore quite thin. But I do not need extraordinary proof because the experience fits the current audio and hearing theories. Maybe I should try more of that when comparing say cables. But I dont see any sign to say that the extra test effort will bring any results. And that's a lot of effort. One full evening for just too cables. Sounds like too much for me.

Looks like it brings results for you. But you are walkin on a very thin ice there. The audio-visual interactions and your whole experience are so complex, I find it hard to put any of that in the 'proof' category. It's just just too much stuff hapening at once, things that you cannot or do not want do control. Things which are not exactly stable or predictable or corelated in any clear or consistent manner. At least in my case, I rarely see the same images when listening to same music. There is some similarity but vague, not even the same dominant color or theme or such.

Oh well. All the above is just a looong way of saying Different folks, different strokes :)

The only clear thing: in my book neither folks nor strokes are proof. Just anecdotes. And those are normally 100% neutral on the rational level. Unless they are particularly lame :)

 

It depends I suppose, on what the purpose is. Selecting gear for my enjoyment or reviewing gear for something else, or testing gear to certify it measures exactly the same.

 

It doesn't make any sense, to me at least, to select gear based upon how it measures, if I am selecting gear for my enjoyment. (It does make sense to be to eliminate gear based upon how it measures though. ) Likewise, it doesn't make sense to use the same criteria in a review or certification assessment. At least, not totally.

 

Which is why so many people here qualify things with IMHO, YMMV, TINAR, etc. That's a clear indicator that they are saying something about their preferences and experience, not providing an analysis designed to represent anything like a certified test.

 

As you mention, those types of tests take a LONG time. Something in very short supply for most people!

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Who said DBTs are for finding differences? Highly doubt it was me. As far as I know they are designed - exactly as you said - mostly for confirming differences. You somehow hear whatever difference or just hear/read about it somewhere and in order to be sure you do a DBT. Or at least a simple BT. You may use DBTs for finding differences too but that may not be the most efficient way. And if no one ever heard a difference, why would you go DBT-mode to see if there was any? These things take time & resources and are not particularly fun.
Right, you have heard the difference in a sighted test before doing the blind test, correct? Does this not make the sighted test more sensitive to finding differences & therefore a better listening test? A blind A/B test is just a verification test, not a listening test & therefore can't be "superior" to a listening test as you claimed

 

Another point. I see blind tests being used & reported on forums where the group sat down to "hear the night & day differences reported by subjectivists". This is exactly the wrong approach - differences will not jump out at you from an A/B blind test - it is a test that is designed to focus on particular aspects already identified as sounding different. If you don't know what section to listen to, what difference to listen out for, you will not hear a difference. But many such A/B tests are premised on the basis that "if it is a night & day difference, it will jump out at me"

 

As about the superiority of DBTs, guess I could have qualified that better. In my book a DBT includes at least a few other people with different backgrouds/mindsets and a few other pieces of equipment to test against.
So does a sighted test & it usually happens over many different sessions
It is also DB. If it fails any of that, I dont even call it a DBT.
Actually it has to have many more criteria to be a DBT of any value
There may be major flaws in running that DBT or processing/interpreting the results but it's still better than "me and my wife in the couch 'testing' one amp".
I think the "me & my wife" scenario also applies to many blind tests too. So you make the same statement, yet again? How can a majorly flawed test with skewed results be "better" than something other test? Unless you can quantify the flaws in each case & derive some statistical measure of "rightness" you have no way making this statement with any believeability.
Link to comment

My summary of DBTs is that they should be the preserve of research labs as they are the only ones with the funds, expertise & facilities to produce any useful DBTs.

 

For the hobbyist, rigorous perceptual testing is so fraught with difficulties that it is best avoided. One might take the view & many do, that it is better to have a less flawed test but this is mistaken. Perceptual testing is a form of testing that requires trained listeners (one of the most important aspects), many trials & statistical analysis as well as internal controls to ensure that the results are not skewed by any influencing factors. Cutting out parts of these requirements does not make the results slightly less correct - it takes away the already tenuous reliability of the results - we don't end up with slightly worse results we end up with results that we have no way of judging the reliability of.

 

Now from the blind tests I've seen run by hobbyists & from the ones I've been involved in myself, what I see is as the major issues are:

- people not knowing exactly what to listen for to differentiate between tracks/devices (the biggest problem) - expecting to automatically hear differences - resulting in a random guess. Remember distortions aren't constant throughout a track, they are dynamic, coming & going which can happen in milliseconds. For a successful test, the anomaly needs to be searched for & identified prior to the blind part of the test or someone needs to point out the anomaly to the test subject prior to the test.

 

- even when people know what to listen for, they often get tired & lose focus - resulting in a random guess. This is not immediately noticed by the test subject - they have often continued a number of trials before they become aware of this (if they do).

 

- when a blind test gives a null result, the view that almost all people take is that there is no audible difference between X & Y. They don't often query the issues raised above. This conclusion then becomes their bias on that matter & is seldom revisited & changed.

Link to comment
My summary of DBTs is that they should be the preserve of research labs as they are the only ones with the funds, expertise & facilities to produce any useful DBTs.

 

For the hobbyist, rigorous perceptual testing is so fraught with difficulties that it is best avoided. One might take the view & many do, that it is better to have a less flawed test but this is mistaken. Perceptual testing is a form of testing that requires trained listeners (one of the most important aspects), many trials & statistical analysis as well as internal controls to ensure that the results are not skewed by any influencing factors. Cutting out parts of these requirements does not make the results slightly less correct - it takes away the already tenuous reliability of the results - we don't end up with slightly worse results we end up with results that we have no way of judging the reliability of.

 

Now from the blind tests I've seen run by hobbyists & from the ones I've been involved in myself, what I see is as the major issues are:

- people not knowing exactly what to listen for to differentiate between tracks/devices (the biggest problem) - expecting to automatically hear differences - resulting in a random guess. Remember distortions aren't constant throughout a track, they are dynamic, coming & going which can happen in milliseconds. For a successful test, the anomaly needs to be searched for & identified prior to the blind part of the test or someone needs to point out the anomaly to the test subject prior to the test.

 

- even when people know what to listen for, they often get tired & lose focus - resulting in a random guess. This is not immediately noticed by the test subject - they have often continued a number of trials before they become aware of this (if they do).

 

- when a blind test gives a null result, the view that almost all people take is that there is no audible difference between X & Y. They don't often query the issues raised above. This conclusion then becomes their bias on that matter & is seldom revisited & changed.

 

Well said I think. :) -Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

 

Now from the blind tests I've seen run by hobbyists & from the ones I've been involved in myself, what I see is as the major issues are:

- people not knowing exactly what to listen for to differentiate between tracks/devices (the biggest problem) - expecting to automatically hear differences - resulting in a random guess.

...

For a successful test, the anomaly needs to be searched for & identified prior to the blind part of the test or someone needs to point out the anomaly to the test subject prior to the test.

 

In cases where you can't scientifically explain or reproduce the effects, such as between cables, how can you even train testers in what to listen for?

 

But if you are testing a person who claims they can hear differences in cables or other components sighted, then they already know what to listen for, right?

Link to comment
In cases where you can't scientifically explain or reproduce the effects, such as between cables, how can you even train testers in what to listen for?

 

But if you are testing a person who claims they can hear differences in cables or other components sighted, then they already know what to listen for, right?

 

Comon, you are just being argumentative there. Of course the cable thing is reproducible, else-wise everyone would consider it pretty much imaginary. Secondly, a fire truck has a very unmistakable and audible sound to it, but how do you know it is a fire truck you are hearing? Someone told you what it was first didn't they? Then recognition became almost automatic.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Comon, you are just being argumentative there. Of course the cable thing is reproducible, else-wise everyone would consider it pretty much imaginary. Secondly, a fire truck has a very unmistakable and audible sound to it, but how do you know it is a fire truck you are hearing? Someone told you what it was first didn't they? Then recognition became almost automatic.

 

-Paul

 

So I take it you would have no problems with rounding up groups of random people and blind testing them for cables?

Link to comment
It depends I suppose, on what the purpose is. Selecting gear for my enjoyment or reviewing gear for something else, or testing gear to certify it measures exactly the same.

 

It doesn't make any sense, to me at least, to select gear based upon how it measures, if I am selecting gear for my enjoyment. (It does make sense to be to eliminate gear based upon how it measures though. ) Likewise, it doesn't make sense to use the same criteria in a review or certification assessment. At least, not totally.

 

Which is why so many people here qualify things with IMHO, YMMV, TINAR, etc. That's a clear indicator that they are saying something about their preferences and experience, not providing an analysis designed to represent anything like a certified test.

 

As you mention, those types of tests take a LONG time. Something in very short supply for most people!

 

-Paul

 

TINAR is a nice acronym that I did not know. So I guess it's not used that often. And it should. Like in every audio anecdote post.

 

And I am surely not buying my components on measurements. Or measurements only. But it is a major factor although most components measure so good nowadays that it is becoming less important. I mostly use measurements as an eliminatory criteria. There are hundreds/thousands of good components in every category, you cant test even 10%.

I'll normally never buy say an ss amp with less than 0.01 THD. Or speakers which are not +-5db flat. Or from producers who dont publish at least an above-average amount of specs. Of course those are not 100% infailible rules. It can happen that I just love a design or a sound and if it's not measuring majorly bad, I may buy it. I have a sweettooth for good design, a WAF and not much space to hide a really ugly component. Would think twice about it though and test it until my ears hurt :).

 

Maybe put it in another way. Many people buy based on eyes & ears only. Maybe a nice and competent salesman too. Those things make them feel good about the purchase and they dont care about anything else. Those things make me feel good to. But I put measurements (more or less) on top of the bunch. A full, good looking measurements sheet makes me feel that I spent my money on something worthy. Something built based on the best EE and acoustics principles and thoroughly tested.

Link to comment
Hold on - you're assuming that there is a difference running throughout the piece so that when you switch over at any point in time, it is immediately noticeable. This typically is not the case - differences only show under particular conditions or in particular parts of an audio piece. So now we have the situation that we have to first find these areas of difference & this is done sighted. The blind test is just a verification process - the real sensing of differences has been done sighted. Some people just don't need the verification step - they are expert enough to know that they are seldom mistaken.

 

Look at the honest example firedog gave - he can tell the difference between mp3 & RBCD sighted - he doesn't need a blind test to verify this - others do to prove to themselves it is real but once they have done so they will no longer use a blind test, they will hear the difference sighted.

 

So I suggest that A/B blind testing is not a tool for discovery of differences (this has already been done sighted) - it is a tool for those who need verification.

 

 

Ah so you are suggesting, in best scientific thinking, that we should ignore the flaws in the test & go with it because you suggest that it is better than another flawed test? How do you evaluate this superiority of one flawed test against another?

 

Another example of really flawed, self serving logic. Perceiving a difference in as experience. Experiences are WORTHLESS without verification if they're to be applied to a method of discovery.

 

Again, read the posts of the highly respected Barry......'your experiences may be different'. It doesn't get any clearer than that now does it?

Link to comment
My summary of DBTs is that they should be the preserve of research labs as they are the only ones with the funds, expertise & facilities to produce any useful DBTs.

 

For the hobbyist, rigorous perceptual testing is so fraught with difficulties that it is best avoided. One might take the view & many do, that it is better to have a less flawed test but this is mistaken. Perceptual testing is a form of testing that requires trained listeners (one of the most important aspects), many trials & statistical analysis as well as internal controls to ensure that the results are not skewed by any influencing factors. Cutting out parts of these requirements does not make the results slightly less correct - it takes away the already tenuous reliability of the results - we don't end up with slightly worse results we end up with results that we have no way of judging the reliability of.

 

Now from the blind tests I've seen run by hobbyists & from the ones I've been involved in myself, what I see is as the major issues are:

- people not knowing exactly what to listen for to differentiate between tracks/devices (the biggest problem) - expecting to automatically hear differences - resulting in a random guess. Remember distortions aren't constant throughout a track, they are dynamic, coming & going which can happen in milliseconds. For a successful test, the anomaly needs to be searched for & identified prior to the blind part of the test or someone needs to point out the anomaly to the test subject prior to the test.

 

- even when people know what to listen for, they often get tired & lose focus - resulting in a random guess. This is not immediately noticed by the test subject - they have often continued a number of trials before they become aware of this (if they do).

 

- when a blind test gives a null result, the view that almost all people take is that there is no audible difference between X & Y. They don't often query the issues raised above. This conclusion then becomes their bias on that matter & is seldom revisited & changed.

 

You surely have a lot of very good points in there. All true and all serious issues to consider. But I still prefer the somewhat flawed DBT to any sighted 'test'. Even my own!

 

Here is the logic.

If I err on the no-DBT side I may easily spend 10K on a component that sounds just as good as a 2K one. Design, hype, 'reviews' can easily derail your auditory senses like that. Very easily. And it doesnt matter much how experienced you are, smart marketing grabs your brain same as well.

If I err on the other side and I believe a somewhat flawed DBT I may at most miss a slightly better component. Cause even the worst DBT does not miss a major sound difference. But I'll still have 10K to spend on something that _truly_ makes a night and day difference.

In my book that is an obvious and easy choice :)

Link to comment
You surely have a lot of very good points in there. All true and all serious issues to consider. But I still prefer the somewhat flawed DBT to any sighted 'test'. Even my own!

 

Here is the logic.

If I err on the no-DBT side I may easily spend 10K on a component that sounds just as good as a 2K one. Design, hype, 'reviews' can easily derail your auditory senses like that. Very easily. And it doesnt matter much how experienced you are, smart marketing grabs your brain same as well.

If I err on the other side and I believe a somewhat flawed DBT I may at most miss a slightly better component. Cause even the worst DBT does not miss a major sound difference. But I'll still have 10K to spend on something that _truly_ makes a night and day difference.

In my book that is an obvious and easy choice :)

 

and if it was a 100k component you could save 100k

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
and if it was a 100k component you could save 100k

 

I was pretty sure it was self-understood that the story was about the 10K I _had_ in my pocket. And could either spend it on a non-tested but well marketed fraud. Or on a thoroughly tested component that brings sure and easy to hear gains.

 

Apparently it was not so obvious. But if you wanna talk like that, sure, sky is the limit. The more DBTs you read, the more you 'save' :D

Link to comment
So I take it you would have no problems with rounding up groups of random people and blind testing them for cables?

 

I would have great and many problems with that, unless there was a training program included in the test protocol. Even then, you would be more measuring the effectiveness of the training than the actual difference. It takes significant time and effort to train someone in critical listening.

 

And critical listening is work, so you had best be prepared to pay those folks or you won't get many acceptable test volunteers. ;)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I was pretty sure it was self-understood that the story was about the 10K I _had_ in my pocket. And could either spend it on a non-tested but well marketed fraud. Or on a thoroughly tested component that brings sure and easy to hear gains.

 

Apparently it was not so obvious. But if you wanna talk like that, sure, sky is the limit. The more DBTs you read, the more you 'save' :D

 

 

your story is slightly confusing, you say you're choosing between a 2k and a 10k usb cable, but then say you still have 10k to spend after selecting the 2k one. shouldn't that be 8k to spend, unless you had 12k in your pocket originally ?

or maybe you walked out of the shop not trusting your ears or the db test, in which case you still had 10k

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
You surely have a lot of very good points in there. All true and all serious issues to consider. But I still prefer the somewhat flawed DBT to any sighted 'test'. Even my own!

 

Here is the logic.

If I err on the no-DBT side I may easily spend 10K on a component that sounds just as good as a 2K one. Design, hype, 'reviews' can easily derail your auditory senses like that. Very easily. And it doesnt matter much how experienced you are, smart marketing grabs your brain same as well.

If I err on the other side and I believe a somewhat flawed DBT I may at most miss a slightly better component. Cause even the worst DBT does not miss a major sound difference. But I'll still have 10K to spend on something that _truly_ makes a night and day difference.

In my book that is an obvious and easy choice :)

 

But these differences are night and day. Some components are regularly relevatory. Anyone can hear them instantly. Unless you do a DBT, then we need super-experienced, highly trained listeners and they might can maybe hear the difference. If they have been trained and experienced as critical listeners which might take years. But as soon as they all go home, are relaxed, and not trying (though all very experienced) all of this stuff is back to night and day. Surely you knew that. So even a well done DBT might cause you to miss out on a life changing component quality difference even if you might not can hear it.

 

Quite simple really.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
But these differences are night and day. Some components are regularly relevatory. Anyone can hear them instantly. Unless you do a DBT, then we need super-experienced, highly trained listeners and they might can maybe hear the difference. If they have been trained and experienced as critical listeners which might take years. But as soon as they all go home, are relaxed, and not trying (though all very experienced) all of this stuff is back to night and day. Surely you knew that. So even a well done DBT might cause you to miss out on a life changing component quality difference even if you might not can hear it.

 

Quite simple really.

 

wonder how many requests components like lampizator dacs get for dbts ? guess they are only bought by the golden eared. If only they knew of this thread they could have just bought something for a few $100s instead that would sound the same.

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made. Richard P Feynman

 

http://mqnplayer.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Would that be the paper that says that if you purposely use an overly-steep filter and no / rectangular dither, that people can barely pick out the difference?

No, it's the paper that says that people can, despite the fact DBT places them under stress (and it has been proven elsewhere that if placed under stress, people might not be able to tell differences between quite surprising things), completely reliably pick out the difference even if the filter is less steep than 44.1 kHz sampling frequency normally would require. It's the paper that also says ABX tests are basically worthless, explains why they are, and then went on to receive the highest paper award that a paper can receive from the AES Organization, which, FYI, makes it the ONLY paper that has ever received this highest paper award in the specific category of Perception. Ever.

 

What can be learned from all this is that there are certain individuals on the net who portray themselves as scientists, yet cannot produce an ounce of science, let alone can even begin to challenge the valuable views and experiences on the subject of psychoacoustics, obviously also including the subject of DBTs, from top experts like Bob Stuart. (sic)

If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work.
Link to comment
So I take it you would have no problems with rounding up groups of random people and blind testing them for cables?

 

Isn't that how they normally select participants for Audio DBTs, then rub their hands in glee when the results meet their expectations ? Given that many these days still think .mp3 and .aac qualifies as Hi-Fi, is it any wonder that most serious Audiophiles regard DBT as a biased waste of time and energy ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...