Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
ODS123

Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Deang said:

Hi Travis,

 

I don't have time right now to track down what you're looking at ... so let me explain.

 

The OP has been trolling this forum since the beginning of November.

 

He started with an "Appeal to Authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam ), and then "Argument through Repetition (argumentum ad nauseam). He's been using these logical fallacies to bait and troll.

 

That's the only pattern I know about ...

I was just.making up stuff on patterns to throw everyone off track and see if anyone recognized fibonacci numbers.

 

They didn't. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

I was just.making up stuff on patterns to throw everyone off track and see if anyone recognized fibonacci numbers.

 

They didn't. 

 

 

Let me be the second to say while somewhat relevant they are not the be all, end all numbers to hang your cap upon.. As a stock merchant can say, they are only an indicator...thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

It's really not that difficult to deal with:

image.png.f04824c83cc9211696cd24a42899b94d.png

 

 

 

Is this Dean at work? I know I've had days like this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we can keep customers out of our comm areas, we don’t have to deal with that nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

793FEBBC-F02D-4431-AE49-B8C3311A4C83.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no!

 

"Our researchers found that there are a few distinct trends in terms of the listener’s preferences, and that the “ideal” bass and treble levels depend on age, degree of hearing loss, and choice of music. Our design team then took this data and created the AKG Audio N5005 headphones, with customizable sound."

 

https://news.harman.com/blog/the-science-of-sound-q-a-with-acoustics-master-dr-sean-olive

 

It comes down to personal preference. 

 

That is in the entire chain.  The violin, the piano, the guitar, the strings, the bow, the microphones, the recording studio, which room in the recording studio, the microphone placement, what it is recorded on, how it is eq'd and processed, who mixes it, what domain it is mixed in,  how it is mixed, what eq and processing is used in the mix, who masters it, where its mastered, what eq and processing is applied during mastering, what format it is purchased in (digital, which digital?, vinyl, which vinyl?) to finaly playing it back, headphones, Alexa cube, Klipsch Grove "loud speakers", fully horn loaded, DR, electrostats, drivers with Be, Al, Ti; tube amps, SS, zipcord, sulver cables, o2 free cables ARE ALL somebody's personal preference.

 

So get yourself a really good equalizer like a Cello Pallet (if you prefer analog) or Bob Burwin, Protools or Audacity (if you like digital) and take it back to your own personal preference.  

 

Science says that your personal preference will change over time.  If you have a good equalizer you won't have to replace your speakers, headphones or anything else. 

 

You can AB, ABX, double blind, or just use plain old subjective "this is what I think sounds best" when you eq it.  You can eq your system, you can eq each individual song, each genre,  each artist, whatever your.preference is.  Than make a sign, "don't mess with my settings."

 

There's your answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

It's really not that difficult to deal with:

image.png.f04824c83cc9211696cd24a42899b94d.png

 

 

 

 

=== that rig is begging for cable risers. Although it might take several dozen think how much quicker and how much more data would be 

transferred? The ROI for risers would be paid in milliseconds - 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's really funny about that picture? The comm racks are sitting on top of carpet. ESD is responsible for more comm related equipment damage than any other reason. He's probably wearing a wool sweater too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deang said:

You know what's really funny about that picture? The comm racks are sitting on top of carpet. ESD is responsible for more comm related equipment damage than any other reason. He's probably wearing a wool sweater too.

That crossed my mind (not the turtleneck or not part). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:35 AM, robert_kc said:

In other words, if 2 amps sound different, then he’ll insert an equalizer to make them sound similar.   It appears that the test was rigged to make the amps sound similar enough that the listener can’t pass the ABX challenge.

 

That's not what was said. He said to do this if one DUT has EQ that cannot be bypassed:

 

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:35 AM, robert_kc said:

If frequency tailoring circuits cannot be completely bypassed an equalizer will be inserted in the signal path of one of the amps

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:38 AM, robert_kc said:
  • Can most people listen to 2 different music samples (A & B ) that have subtle sound differences, and then listen to Sample X, and reliably identify whether A or B is the same as X?  What percentage of the general population can remember 3 audio samples that have subtle differences?  What percentage of trained listeners?   What are the limits of human memory of sound?  If someone can’t identify X as A or B, does that mean that A & B are the same, or does this show that people can’t remember 3 sound samples with subtle differences, and the ABX test is therefore limited in its usefulness for audio?  (It seems to me this may be different from a scenario where the differences between A & B are significant, e.g., A is a duck quacking and B is a dog barking.)  Is an ABX audio test effectively a shell game – i.e., it confuses people?
     
  • What is the explanation for the phenomenon that many people who participate in formal tests (e.g., ABX, DBT) often cannot reliably identify subtle differences in sound quality (e.g., between different amps, or different bit rates for recordings), whereas many life-long hobbyists report that they can readily hear differences via their casual listening observations?  Are the hobbyists “audiophools”?   Or does this point to a problem with the test methodology? 

I don’t know the answers to these questions,

 

So you don't know the basics of ABX/DBT yet you argue about it? ROFLMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the first bullet, it sounds like he understands how ABX/DBT works. He just doesn't know the answers to the questions he asking. I mean, I have the same questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Deang said:

Based on the first bullet, it sounds like he understands how ABX/DBT works. He just doesn't know the answers to the questions he asking. I mean, I have the same questions.

 

No, he doesn't understand at all. ABX/DBT does not compare 3 samples at once. The subject listens to one sound sample, a switch is made, and the question is asked, "Is there a difference or not." Testing is repeated several times with neither the tester or subject knowing whether A, B. or X (no change) has been selected. The test equipment records the results. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I apparently don't understand how it works either.

 

How many buttons are there on one of those contraptions - just one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The listener has "difference" and "no difference" buttons they press.  A computer randomly selects "A", "B", or "X" and records the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Don Richard said:

The subject listens to one sound sample, a switch is made, and the question is asked, "Is there a difference or not." Testing is repeated several times with neither the tester or subject knowing whether A, B. or X (no change) has been selected.

 

That is different from what I understand ABX testing to be. As I understand it, there is sample A, sample B, and sample X. Samples A and B are different from each other. Sample X is the same as either sample A or sample B, but nobody knows which one and the selection of A or B for X is random. The subject is allowed to switch between A, B, and X as often as desired. Ultimately they must choose whether X is the same as A or the same as B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Edgar said:

That is different from what I understand ABX testing to be. As I understand it, there is sample A, sample B, and sample X. Samples A and B are different from each other. Sample X is the same as either sample A or sample B, but nobody knows which one and the selection of A or B for X is random. The subject is allowed to switch between A, B, and X as often as desired. Ultimately they must choose whether X is the same as A or the same as B.

 

That would work, but the computerized example I posted right above your post is more automated and adaptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Deang said:

Okay, I apparently don't understand how it works either.

 

How many buttons are there on one of those contraptions - just one?

 

11 minutes ago, Don Richard said:

The listener has "difference" and "no difference" buttons they press.  A computer randomly selects "A", "B", or "X" and records the results.

 

10 minutes ago, Edgar said:

 

That is different from what I understand ABX testing to be. As I understand it, there is sample A, sample B, and sample X. Samples A and B are different from each other. Sample X is the same as either sample A or sample B, but nobody knows which one and the selection of A or B for X is random. The subject is allowed to switch between A, B, and X as often as desired. Ultimately they must choose whether X is the same as A or the same as B.

Sounds like maybe we're talking about different types of ABX testers. Don's sounds like a self contained in a computer that works comparing .wav or FLAC files or what have you. Dean and Edgar's responses sound as if they expect there to be an external piece of hardware(the ABX box) that allows comparison between two amps for example. I believe Don's type exists in the present day but the other does not currently. I hope someone proves me wrong and posts a link to a currently available ABX box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Richard said:

 

That's not what was said. He said to do this if one DUT has EQ that cannot be bypassed:

 

 

 

 

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:   The rules for the "Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge" also state:  "Compensation will also be made for input and output loading that affects frequency response."  What does this mean?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, babadono said:

Don's sounds like a self contained in a computer that works comparing .wav or FLAC files or what have you.

 

That could be, but the computer could also be set up to switch amplifiers, speakers, wires, or whatever.

 

I believe these testing devices are custom made, often in-house by companies that use them, and not generally for sale. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...