Mixed signals
-
It sounds like he's using the DAC in his CD player, and not a digital out, so I wouldn't be so quick to doubt that he hears a difference in quality. It's not like we're comparing TOSLINK cables or power cords here…
-
@b-redeker said:
To me your opinion appears to be "gut instinct" while mine is evidence based (having worked with the stuff for a year and a half). Apparently you think it's exactly the opposite, so I'm really curious how you see that.
You have not demonstrated that your tests were double-blind.
Until you do, your opinion is not evidence-based.
-
What we'd do regularly was make a setup, with 2 (or more) CD players, amps, interlinks, etc. One person would make the switch, the other would just listen. So that's single blind rather than double blind; we had no way to do that. It's also not really scientific, which is why I described it as "fairly controlled" tests.
I often did similar tests with customers. This will convince you less easily, but it got me every time. It was especially interesting when guys brought in their wives or girlfriend who invariably beforehand said "oh, I don't hear that anyway nor do I care" and then sat wide-eyed, jaws on the ground after the first test.
The one thing where it is actually harder to set up such a test is with speakers, because you have to blindfold the subject, and even then you'd have to make sure the placing is exactly the same or you don't have a good test. Speakers being magnetic (influencing each other), you also have to make sure you don't put 2 speakers too close too each other (a difference that was easily tested - single blind - and confirmed).
But again, you don't need a double blind test to see whether the Ferrari beats the Chevy Nova. You just open your eyes.
-
@Enterprise Architect said:
It sounds like he's using the DAC in his CD player, and not a digital out, so I wouldn't be so quick to doubt that he hears a difference in quality. It's not like we're comparing TOSLINK cables or power cords here…
Yeah, but he didn't fucking SAY SO until we already spent 8 posts debating whether an expensive CD player is better than a cheap one.
So far the only arguments b-redeker have brought up:
1) My expensive system sounds better
2) 15 years ago, I was able to convince people that other expensive systems sound better, in a retail environment where I had a financial interest in people thinking expensive systems sound better
3) Despite talking like an audiophile, I had no idea that a CD player and a DAC were two different componentsNothing there's compelling me.
@b-redeker said:
So that's single blind rather than double blind; we had no way to do that.
Sure you did. What were you lacking? A piece of cardboard to serve as a separator? Of course you wouldn't do that because you were trying to sell expensive stereo systems so you have absolutely zero interest in a fair test.
@b-redeker said:
It's also not really scientific, which is why I described it as "fairly controlled" tests.
Wow, it's almost as if, despite pretending you don't 6 posts ago, you actually do understand my arguments!
@b-redeker said:
It was especially interesting when guys brought in their wives or girlfriend who invariably beforehand said "oh, I don't hear that anyway nor do I care" and then sat wide-eyed, jaws on the ground after the first test.
Hey, here's an alternate theory: they were just trying to shut their annoying audiophile boyfriends up, and thought pretending to be impressed with the system was the best way of doing that!
And here's some advice from you, b-redeker: when you're dealing with a forum that's already wary over the opinion-based non-scientific crap you've already shoveled at us, make sure you type a full just steaming full of brand new non-scientific crap! Especially the paragraph right after you admit you never did an actual test of the system's sound reproduction! Please keep going, I'm sure I'll flip my opinion around any second now, I just need more non-scientific opinion-based crap!! Tell me about how your customer's dogs would actually hang out their tongues and pant when you played Nirvana on the system!
@b-redeker said:
But again, you don't need a double blind test to see whether the Ferrari beats the Chevy Nova. You just open your eyes.
Depends on what aspect you're testing. If you're testing road noise, and you're doing it with "your eyes" then you're a fucking idiot. (For example.)
If you're testing acceleration, the reason you don't need a double blind test is that there's no placebo effect involved... people aren't going to see the Ferrari cross the finish line first because they know it's a more expensive car. Despite that, I'd still take the word of the guy with the stopwatch (the guy actually measuring it) over the word of anybody else observing it.
This is really... I dunno, disappointing. You're a software engineer, aren't you? Why is it so hard to convince a software engineer of the value of testing? How the holy shit do you write software? "Oh this algorithm feels better in my gut. We don't need to measure it." "Users aren't going to be confused if we put 'new' and 'delete' buttons right next to each other with no padding, there's no need to test that." You're a WTF factory!
