Ralf11 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Blind testing is the solution to confirmation bias. Link to comment
esldude Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier - here is an easy response to the conversation - what currently existing $500 Dac can meet or exceed the Schiit Yggdrasil at a list price of 2300 - or is that missing the point somehow? Would be fun to do Modwright-altered Concero HD vs Yggy. I would find that interesting. But Concero HD, or the Emotiva mentioned above? I don't think it can meet the Yggy sound quality. Do you mean theoretically, or maybe hand-built? Tell us more. This concept of transparency was widely understood at one time. Now I see people act like a wiener dog chasing their tale in figure 8 pattern. If a component is transparent without audible coloration, there is no better device in terms of fidelity. There may be different, there may be equal, some preference other than fidelity may be best for any given person. But there is nowhere for a device in terms of fidelity to go. If, as I suggest, a $500 DAC is transparent the Yaggy would only meet it or sound different from colorations in its design. There is no exceeding possible by any device at any price. It might have better measured performance, or features or something, but still not sound better. So my answer would be if the Yaggy didn't sound equal to the Emotiva, then it is of lower fidelity? Certainly not something I would spend extra money on. The only measurements I find show excellent performance for the Yaggy except it might allow a bit of aliasing through as it uses one of the post ringing filters. It looks like the level of that is too low to matter best I can tell. So I think the Yaggy would sound the same. How likely is it to sound the same when everyone sees what they are listening to and knows which is which? Probably close to zero. If no one knew which was which, probably a good chance no one would make a solid decision of one over the other. You might find this unlikely. Maybe look at this thread of mine if you missed it. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/which-digital-analogue-converter-do-you-prefer-28370/ I will even spill some of the beans up front. You can still download those files and listen for yourself. One of them is a smartphone. One is a laptop from Lenovo. Two are from pretty good DACs, and one is the upsampled digital original in case you think my gear all sucks and would color everything. Listen to them and see how obvious the differences are. Don't go past the first page on the thread and you won't know the answer until you decide for yourself. Or try this other one. I recorded a $400 DAC with a $400 ADC. Took the result and sent it thru again. Rinse and repeat 8 times. The files you are downloading are two digital original and an 8th generation copy. Pick the odd sounding file. Surely with such a lowly bit of gear the degradation would be insanely obvious vs an original pair of files. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/can-you-hear-16-times-distortion-time-domain-digital-sound-signal-human-hearing-very-sensitive-jitter-28433/ Maybe you will see I didn't just dream up these ideas in isolation or from wishful thinking. They have some basis in reality. 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
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 This is fascinating to me since I have no background in psychology or cognitive science. I've long tried to understand how "confirmation bias" can influence what we hear, especially over months and years. A quick search for this effect here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases -- doesn't turn up any relevant cognitive biases. Can you point me to some relevant research that explains how "confirmation bias" can make us hear things that aren't there? Especially when there are no preconceived ideas as to what to expect? Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I will even spill some of the beans up front. You can still download those files and listen for yourself. One of them is a smartphone. One is a laptop from Lenovo. Two are from pretty good DACs, and one is the upsampled digital original in case you think my gear all sucks and would color everything. Listen to them and see how obvious the differences are. Don't go past the first page on the thread and you won't know the answer until you decide for yourself. Or try this other one. I recorded a $400 DAC with a $400 ADC. Took the result and sent it thru again. Rinse and repeat 8 times. The files you are downloading are two digital original and an 8th generation copy. Pick the odd sounding file. Surely with such a lowly bit of gear the degradation would be insanely obvious vs an original pair of files. Can you hear 16 times the jitter? Maybe you will see I didn't just dream up these ideas in isolation or from wishful thinking. They have some basis in reality. 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
lightminer Posted November 10, 2016 Author Share Posted November 10, 2016 Well, a simple observation is that as I moved up to higher level DACs from lower ones I found that in the midst of a full orchestra piece going crazy some dacs collapse at that point, and others can handle it, you can still hear the full soundstage, it doesn't get muddy, instruments don't blur together. So, maybe you are right, but there are no 'transparent' dacs at 500. And again, the output has to be strong enough and matched to the upstream components. The sound quality difference at full crescendo of a full orchestra is easily observed between mid-fi and better components. These are the kinds of things it would be really fun to go over in person, but the internet, as fun as it can be eventually lets us down. A non-audiophile can blind ABX 10 times correctly the difference I am talking about, and the 'better' one is clearly better, not colored, etc. I would love to pursue this in person. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 This is fascinating to me since I have no background in psychology or cognitive science. I've long tried to understand how "confirmation bias" can influence what we hear, especially over months and years. A quick search for this effect here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases -- doesn't turn up any relevant cognitive biases. Can you point me to some relevant research that explains how "confirmation bias" can make us hear things that aren't there? Especially when there are no preconceived ideas as to what to expect? https://www.google.com/search?q=confirmation+bias+and+blind+testing&oq=confirmation+bias+and+blind+testing&aqs=chrome..69i57.11663j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Link to comment
esldude Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Well, a simple observation is that as I moved up to higher level DACs from lower ones I found that in the midst of a full orchestra piece going crazy some dacs collapse at that point, and others can handle it, you can still hear the full soundstage, it doesn't get muddy, instruments don't blur together. So, maybe you are right, but there are no 'transparent' dacs at 500. And again, the output has to be strong enough and matched to the upstream components. The sound quality difference at full crescendo of a full orchestra is easily observed between mid-fi and better components. These are the kinds of things it would be really fun to go over in person, but the internet, as fun as it can be eventually lets us down. A non-audiophile can blind ABX 10 times correctly the difference I am talking about, and the 'better' one is clearly better, not colored, etc. I would love to pursue this in person. Have you had someone blind test ten for ten with level matched DACs? Which DACs did you use to compare? Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app 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
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I know how to search. I was looking for something specific that directly relates to your point that would illustrate your knowledge of the topic. Link to comment
Jud Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 You have been keeping that punchline for a year haven't you? Oh but it'll be great when it's finally delivered. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Jud Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Blind testing is the solution to confirmation bias. Not scientific to conclude blind testing is efficacious for specific audio qualities without a proper literature search and review of the relevant results of that search, is it? One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I know how to search. I was looking for something specific that directly relates to your point that would illustrate your knowledge of the topic. you might want to start off with an intro psychology text I am not interested in "illustrating my knowledge of the topic" except to other scientists, in refereed journals. Link to comment
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 That's really too bad. I'm left with the impression that you may not know what you're talking about. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Not scientific to conclude blind testing is efficacious for specific audio qualities without a proper literature search and review of the relevant results of that search, is it? I've gone thru several of the links you supplied but am not seeing anything yet on point. Blind testing is not required for a major difference - say something on the order of driving a Porsche vs. a Yugo, but is highly advised for anyone seeking to blow a lot of cash for fluid filled cables, or maybe that $500 DAC that matches the $2,300 Ygdrasil. The latter is perfect for a good test. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 That's really too bad. I'm left with the impression that you may not know what you're talking about. I am completely uninterested in your impressions. Get back to me if you have any data. Link to comment
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 OK. Will do, chief, just don't hold your breath. (Hint: I don't write about "data") Link to comment
Jud Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I've gone thru several of the links you supplied but am not seeing anything yet on point. Blind testing is not required for a major difference You mean like the difference between a clarinet and a trumpet (with the transient attack of the note removed)? One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
elcorso Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 OK. Will do, chief, just don't hold your breath. (Hint: I don't write about "data") I'm sorry, but as you can see some people here is more interested in "data" than musicality. It doesn't matter to them if the DAC (or any piece of gear) sounds like sh*t if the "data" match standard "scientific" parameters Roch Link to comment
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 That's great! More power to them. Where we depart from reason is when we try impose our views on others. Link to comment
trappy Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Seems to me it's mostly the deaf as advocates strongly for blind testing. Mac Mini (+Tidal +Roon) -> WiFi -> Lyngdorf TDAI1120 ->JM Reynaud Lucia (Tellurium Q Black v2) Link to comment
esldude Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Seems to me it's mostly the deaf as advocates strongly for blind testing. Those who trust their ears seem to get all shy and stuff when they don't get to use their eyes too. 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
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Those who trust their ears seem to get all shy and stuff when they don't get to use their eyes too. Apologies for moving things back on my topic, but I think we're in agreement that your claim that I'm "making it up" was nonsense. Link to comment
trappy Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I get shy at tests of ANY kind, especially tests of my degree of enjoyment. I would think that would influence any purportedly objective test. Mac Mini (+Tidal +Roon) -> WiFi -> Lyngdorf TDAI1120 ->JM Reynaud Lucia (Tellurium Q Black v2) Link to comment
kumakuma Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Apologies for moving things back on my topic, but I think we're in agreement that your claim that I'm "making it up" was nonsense. Thanks for joining us. I suggest using the "Reply With Quote" feature so it's clear who you are talking to. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Michael Lavorgna Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Thanks for joining us. I suggest using the "Reply With Quote" feature so it's clear who you are talking to. My apologies. Thank you for pointing this out (I replied with quote in the hopes that I've learned ;-) Link to comment
kumakuma Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 My apologies. Thank you for pointing this out (I replied with quote in the hopes that I've learned ;-) I think ya got it! Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now