| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
December 5, 2007 - 9:48am
#1
Practical Double-Blind (
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
but wouldn't the playing back of the recording, not to mention the capture of the recording, introduce a deviation from the two units under comparison?
Seems you're suggesting that the resolution of your unit (which I'm unfamiliar with, sorry) is of an order of magnitude better than the items under comparison?
If so, and if the playback system of the resulting DVD is also more detailed than the items under comparison, then it sounds useful, if not perfect.
I wonder about jitter and other imperfections in the recording.
I doubt my own system is good enough to hide behind any differences in the two items in the proposed recording.
In any event, i'd be keen to participate. I like the testing, if only as an sense-sharpening exercise.
Yes, but the recording would add the same artifacts to both A and B, so there will still be a difference. Yes, the Korg is VERY transparent, but I'm hoping that Ric Schultz can further improve that transparency for me by upgrading the input and outputs and additing some internal shielding.
Good point, but I want to go forward. Would you be able to play back a DVD-A? I see lots of people talking about universal players here, but I wonder how many people actually can play DVD-A.
Dave
I have had discrete 2 and 5.1 channel DVD-A since 2000 with some current upgrades (Full range Wharfedale Pacifiv Evo and Opus speakers, Marantz 7001, PS Audio Plus power cable). What it lacks in audiophile accuracy, it makes up in SLAM! My hearing isn't what it once was (too much SLAM!?), but I'd be willing to help if you won't rake me over the coals if I fail your test.
Of course, due to the "Myth of the Objective Consciousness" I won't be able to believe my own ears.
I invision starting with an "easy" test and then moving something a little harder. Ultimately, if we make it past the first couple of tests, then we might even throw in the occasional A-only to satisfy those that claim there's no difference anyway while keeping the golden ear, true believers on their toes.
Dave
If I understand correctly the motivation for the technique proposed is to reduce the switching time between samples when making comparisons.
It is my belief that the goal of quick switching is a horribly misguided. The notivation is based upon studies of the duration of aural memory, which being quite short, leads naturally to the goal of quick (if not instantaneous) switching.
However my own experience, both in sighted and blind testing, I consistenty find quick switching to be near useless for detecting differences.
So what to do? Aural memeory has short duration, that cannot be denied, so simply *don't* depend upon it..., use normal memory! What I mean by that is make notes while listening to a relative short passage of music, say 30-60 seconds. Repeat the selection a number of times concentrating on different aspects of the sound, perhaps the sound of double bass, then again for the piano, etc., making notes as you go.
Aided with the notes then listen again after swapping the component (or cable, or whatever). Concentrate again on the various aspects of the sound and check impressions against the notes.
This works best for me and it can be applied to both sighted or blind testing. Like anything else one develops a aptitude through practice and after some time the usage of notes becomes somewhat optional, at least if willing to perform more swaps, i.e. concentrate of just one aspect of sound and then swap to compare.
...
You would expect that impressions gained using this technique to be confirmed via long term listening, and I have found this to be the case generally. However it's not always the case as nothing really replaces long term exposure.
I'm reminded of a case where having swapped speaker cables noticing certain differences which I thought of as generally negative. Upon swapping back to original wire (about a week later) I felt my impressions were confirmed. Yet after another week or so I came to miss certain aspects of the perfromance of the cables I had auditioned. In retrospect it seemed to me that I had overlooked certain positive traits, almost as thought the negative aspects had masked positive aspects.
Alas, I just have a cd player.
But xmas is coming.
I've been holding off buying a new player in hopes of figuring out what sort of new media to invest in. Sounds like you've voted for DVD-A?
I actually really like the design of your test! A guy recently posted a pair of samples of a recording he made in different formats and asked if we could tell the difference. It was a fun and useful exercise.
With your test, there is the opportunity to give some indication of the merits of golden-earedness and whether components really do sound different. Could this be the start of a revolution!?!?
Well, the length of the samples could easily be 30 to 60 seconds. The short time lapse between samples is a bonus. The BIG advantage of using recordins is the ability of the panelists to review the samples over and over. Remember, in the first step they're simply trying to identify differences, not qualitatively evaluate them. For those that demonstrate the ability to detect a difference, they'll then be rewarded with a full length sample of A and B, which they can listen to as many times as they like.
So, I'm hoping that the test will yield benefits from both short samples and extended listening.
I'm using DVD-A to get to the highest resolution practical for a decently large cross section of serious listeners. I'm afraid that CD will mask the more subtle differences.
If everyone had 5.6MHz DSD, I'd use that.
Dave
Dave