GoldenOne

ASR Response

May 3rd, 2021
313
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. [QUOTE="eigenvalue, post: 767931, member: 31261"]This is in my opinion not a great argument. If you are firm believer in dacs sounding different to each other it why would you objective bias yourself into thinking otherwise? Also if this were the case then there would be people who would have minimal subjective bias, a little bit and people who have a lot of subjective bias towards dacs sounding the same. As a whole the population should balance itself in a proper trial and hence the results would be analysed as a whole, double blind tests aren't magic and this argument could be applied to basically any field including medicine yet we still double blind trials.[/QUOTE]
  2.  
  3. I'm not implying that in a sufficient run/participant trial the results wouldn't balance out.
  4. I'm simply saying that if someone is out to prove that DACs (or anything else) sounds the same, then you can either intentionally fail, or have your expectation bias cause you to fail a blind test.
  5. For that reason you cannot use a blind ABX test to prove that two things are the same. You can only use it to prove (or suggest to a statistically significant manner) that there IS a reliably audible difference.
  6.  
  7. With a sufficiently large, properly done trial yes the results should be reliable.
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
  11. [QUOTE="amirm, post: 767928, member: 2"]So it is clear, if he keeps making those arguments here, then we will show him the door. You all can reference his videos/writings elsewhere but we are not here to give him a megaphone otherwise.[/QUOTE]
  12.  
  13. I'm trying to have a fairly civil and level-headed discussion here.
  14. I understand we disagree and that is totally fine. But this is exactly what I mean when I say that things are becoming increasingly polarised.
  15. If you ban/censor discussion you do not agree with, an echo chamber is created.
  16. I made my opinion in regards to censorship clear to your moderator in the phone call we had.
  17.  
  18. People should be able to disagree without having a fight. Because if you have civil discussion and debate, people learn things. If you effectively push away anyone who doesn't agree with you from the get-go. It's
  19.  
  20.  
  21. [QUOTE="amirm, post: 767952, member: 2"]And what do you mean "experienced listeners?" If you mean audiophiles, they are miserable, not better:[/QUOTE]
  22.  
  23. I probably wouldn't consider the average audiophile to be a particularly good listener no. Though perhaps would assume they'd be at least somewhat better than the average person. It could be that isn't the case, I'd love to see some studies done on that question as it'd be an interesting area in itself.
  24.  
  25. I'm sure there are going to be VAST differences in ability for people with various experience and professions. I'm simply saying that if a study tests for say the audibility threshold of metric X, then testing with random people who've likely never heard much better than airpods and possibly have spent 0 time listening to live music, is unlikely to give a result indicative of the capabilities of 'trained' or 'experienced' listeners however you define that.
  26.  
  27. I don't mind and don't wish to argue about what would quantify a 'trained' listener. I'm simply saying that, as your graph suggests, they have better capabilities than others and so perhaps studies testing audibility thresholds should more often use 'trained' listeners.
  28. Otherwise, to use another car analogy, it's a bit like saying that a certain sports car cannot possibly go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds. But it's cause they only put average drivers who've only ever driven civics or fiestas in it.
  29. If you put an 'experienced' driver in the car. Be it an 'experienced' hobbyist with a supra, or a 'trained' F1 driver, they'd likely have better capabilities with gear shifting etc and could get a better result.
  30.  
  31. Would you mind posting some context/a link for this graph?
  32.  
  33. The categories and axis labels are somewhat abstract.
  34.  
  35.  
  36.  
  37. [QUOTE="eigenvalue, post: 767958, member: 31261"]I agree with Amir, the musician argument is terrible and frankly leads me to believe you don't know many musicians. Musicians often don't pay much attention as music unlike audio equipment is subjective. In fact most musicians may not even own a hifi setup (I know a musician who swears by his sonos system). Musician =/= critical listener.[/QUOTE]
  38.  
  39. I've played piano, violin, drums and sung since I was about 7.
  40. I've been in orchestras and even choirs. I've spent a significant amount of time involved with various forms of live music.
  41.  
  42. I don't claim that this makes me a 'trained' listener, it doesn't. But I have spent a silly amount of time around live music.
  43.  
  44.  
  45.  
  46. [QUOTE="amirm, post: 767960, member: 2"]No, we know how to deal with that. We repeat your experiment. Ask first how you should run your test so that we can tell you the proper protocol. That way, there will be a lot less pushback.[/QUOTE]
  47.  
  48. Could you suggest a proper methodology that you would be happy with to ABX two digital sources.
  49. Same dac, same amp, same player, same everything. The only difference being the method of digital input. Both of which will have all jitter below -130dB (~20ps)
  50.  
  51. [QUOTE="amirm, post: 767971, member: 2"]It isn't actually. I am seeing a large transformation toward audio science, engineering and objectivity. Our growth is great proof of that:
  52.  
  53.  
  54.  
  55. We are in blue, stereophile is orange:
  56.  
  57.  
  58.  
  59. 127706
  60.  
  61.  
  62.  
  63.  
  64.  
  65. A year ago we were tiny compared to head-fi. Now look at us:
  66.  
  67.  
  68.  
  69. 127707
  70.  
  71.  
  72.  
  73. We are getting very close to them. People are realizing what proper information about audio looks like. And it is not what you are saying.
  74.  
  75.  
  76.  
  77. So no, we are not going to lay low to make you feel better with your unresearched positions on audio. We are going to continue to raise our voices and stamp out misinformation. You all used to have free space on youtube but no more.[/QUOTE]
  78.  
  79. This just addresses the two polar opposites. It does not address the issue of polarisation and lack of a 'middleground' so to speak.
  80. I'm not asking you to lay low or not say anything. That'd be the opposite of what I want.
  81.  
  82. I don't want people all going to their own preferred forum/group and simply having everyone around them confirm their beliefs no matter what they may be.
  83. I WANT people to disagree, to debate, to have discussion.
  84. It just needs to be civil, free from censorship, ad hominem attacks, and conducted in a level-headed manner. Unfortunately the subject of what at it's core is literally making air wiggle better, makes some people VERY angry and it can be difficult to find that.
  85.  
  86.  
  87.  
  88.  
  89. [QUOTE="eigenvalue, post: 767985, member: 31261"]Interesting how ever since this polarisation gained popularity more and more companies have been releasing objectively better equipment, driving costs down etc etc.[/QUOTE]
  90.  
  91. And this is absolutely a good thing!
  92. I am VERY grateful that Amir has made so many measurements of audio gear at all price ranges available. That is indeed absolutely fantastic and it's also fantastic that objectively well-performing products are becoming more accessible.
  93.  
  94. As I mentioned in my earlier post, objective performance IS important to me. Without it we'd be relying on fluff and marketing alone. But I just don't think that we've 'solved' or have a full picture of what criteria and situations influence what we hear.
  95.  
  96. Fairy dust doesn't exist. IF there is an audible difference there WILL be a measurement or test that can demonstrate it.
  97. I just don't think that all audible criteria are necessarily shown in the standard test suites we see, and/or, certain metrics may be more audible than currently assumed.
  98.  
  99.  
  100.  
  101.  
  102. [QUOTE="richard12511, post: 767998, member: 12710"]I couldn't help but think the "measurements don't tell the whole story" nature of those videos undermines the legitimacy of his MQA video. If measurements don't tell the story, then it's possible that MQA really is better than lossless by some unmeasurable caveat.[/QUOTE]
  103.  
  104. And to be clear, this is completely true. It IS possible that MQA has some special property that makes it better than normal PCM playback.
  105. The problem is that it's a black box they refuse to allow us to test and give VERY little info on.
  106. It's also entirely possible that quantum stickers make the system sound better. But without any way of testing it and the company fighting you at every turn, it's rather difficult.
  107.  
  108. I don't like making assumptions. I like to go based on the evidence we have available. But it's also important to understand when the evidence is or may be incomplete.
RAW Paste Data