Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

[michaelab]

Re: Re: Bake off hearing tests

Originally posted by Lawrie
What if I preferred the sound of a much cheaper player that cost several thousands less. So this reluctance is perfectly understandable. It's called fear. I can't see any other reason for pouring scorn on the idea can you?

Yes, I can. It's because it's about enjoying music not writing papers for publishing in Nature

If, in a blind test, it was "proved" to me that a £300 Marantz sounded just as good as my Teac T1 and Chord DAC64 I'd still be more than happy to keep my gear and the only thing that would have been proved to me is that a blind tests are even less reliable than I thought they were.

Michael.

 

[sideshowbob]

Julian - speakers are one case where differences are generally very obvious, speaker choice has a more marked effect on system presentation than anything else IME. But I completely agree that it often takes a while to work out whether one can live with a new component or not. Putting something in the system for a few days, listening as normal, and then taking it out again and listening for a few more days is something I've done a few times myself. Interestingly, mostly when I've done this the jaw-droppingness of the initial improvement has proved to be an illusion.

If, in a blind test, it was "proved" to me that a £300 Marantz sounded just as good as my Teac T1 and Chord DAC64 I'd still be more than happy to keep my gear and the only thing that would have been proved to me is that a blind tests are even less reliable than I thought they were.

I don't see how this can prove a blind test is unreliable. If, under properly-conducted double blind test conditions, one cannot tell the difference between component A and component B, it's not the test that's unreliable, but the assumption there's an audible difference between the components in question.

I'm not suggesting or recommending blind testing, btw. If someone can afford to spend money on an expensive CDP, and they enjoy it, fair enough. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be able to reliably tell my £900 CDP from a £200 model using the same DAC, doesn't worry me in the slightest, and it doesn't make me question science either. Audiophilia isn't all about the music, let's not forget. We're all gadget-heads who also love music, we like nice expensive toys and we might as well be honest about it. Someone like Merlin, who changes his system more often than his underpants, is an extreme case, but virtually all of us have a similar mindset, regardless of how much we may protest that it's all about the music. That's why we hang around on hi-fi fora, discussing preferences in consumer electronics.

-- Ian

 

[joel]

'Countless' In statistics (which Aczel is using) requires 16 trials, where you have to get 13+ right, in order to get a "reasonable" probability that the result isn't "chance", and he got that criteria from this paper[1]. I sincerely doubt the dealer swapped each combination in 16 times, and as you say this anecdotal evidence was neither "double blind" nor "level matched".

Well, one could be sceptical about a process that required listening at least 16 times to something.
This "statistical" approach does rather seem to fail to take into account human boredom and impatience, in fact it seems to quite ignore human psychology or physiology.
I would suggest that most of us are unlikely to be capable of sustaining either the concentration or interest necessary for this approach to be genuinely successful.
In addition, it has been mentioned in various places that our aural memory is very short. If this is the case, what exactly are we comparing to what?

 

[HenryT]

I have a Sony ES CDP that I paid £400 for back in 1992 which currently resides in a second system. As far as build quality and looks are concerned, well the only reason I haven't sold it on is because I love looking at and handling this machine. As far as sonics and perceived music making abilities are concerned, compared to what I use in the main system, there's no way I could bare to swap the Sony in to replace what's currently there. Believe me, if I could live with it on sonic grounds alone, I would.

I have no interest in spending unnecessary money or paying for something that just looks good. I have poor eye sight anyway and don't see what the fuss is all about when it comes to ergonomics. I splash money out on this hobby to satisfy myself, not to show off to my peers, or to follow fashion.

I'd also be 100% up for doing a level matched blind listening test to verify that CD players at different price points DO sound different.

 

[The Devil]

We're all gadget-heads who also love music, we like nice expensive toys and we might as well be honest about it.

To that I would add: Once we've spent enormous sums of money on our new toy, we feel duty-bound to rationalise the expense - usually on the grounds that this new CD player sounds MILES better than the old one.

 

[PeteH]

Originally posted by michaelab

If, in a blind test, it was "proved" to me that a £300 Marantz sounded just as good as my Teac T1 and Chord DAC64 I'd still be more than happy to keep my gear and the only thing that would have been proved to me is that a blind tests are even less reliable than I thought they were.

There we go - this sort of thing is exactly how to keep us objectivists coming back for more. I didn't like the answer I got, therefore the answer must be wrong. But the argument will rage and rage, and even when blind tests are reported the results are often shockingly misinterpreted - see http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index1.html for an example. A small number of people out of hundreds present at a blind listening test who scored better-than-random on an amplifier AX test (ie. did you hear a difference, or not) were labelled the "keen-eared observers". Clearly these were the people with more accurate discrimination - there's obviously no way that pure chance could lead to a number of people out of 500 tested getting 6 out of 7 comparisons right

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by joel
Well, one could be sceptical about a process that required listening at least 16 times to something.
This "statistical" approach does rather seem to fail to take into account human boredom and impatience, in fact it seems to quite ignore human psychology or physiology.
I would suggest that most of us are unlikely to be capable of sustaining either the concentration or interest necessary for this approach to be genuinely successful.
In addition, it has been mentioned in various places that our aural memory is very short. If this is the case, what exactly are we comparing to what?

A superb post Joel - you've summed up why blind tests are not terribly well suited to testing hifi gear. Another point not mentioned is that not all improvements or changes will be immediately apparent on a 1 minute, 5 minute or even 30 minute piece of music so what piece of music to use? Some music will show an improvement in bass extension and control much better than some other music which might be good for checking mid range purity.

All reasons why doing 16 ABX tests with the same 30 second snippet of music is rarely, if ever going to produce meaningful results.

I didn't like the answer I got, therefore the answer must be wrong.

No Pete, you misunderstand me. The above assumes that the testing methodolgy is 100% reliable which it clearly isn't. See above. It's not so much that the answer must be wrong but that the testing methodolgy must be wrong.

Michael.

 

[cookiemonster]

You are clutching at audiophile straws dude and you know it

Even if this is the case Lawrie, i'm not sure why the blind testing advocates are so keen to force the issue. Perhaps they are likewise clutching at straws, albeit blindfolded.

This reluctance to admit that 'high end' expensive products really do outperform their plebian siblings is perfectly understandable. It's called fear. I can't see any other reason for pouring scorn on the idea can you?

 

[notaclue]

Blind testing does not have to mean blind A-B 'Rolf Harris' style testing i.e. can you tell what it is yet?

Look at Hi-Fi Choice. They blind test amps, cd players and speakers to overcome brand/price bias etc.

 

[wolfgang]

Originally posted by PeteH
see http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index1.html for an example. A small number of people out of hundreds present at a blind listening test who scored better-than-random on an amplifier AX test (ie. did you hear a difference, or not) were labelled the "keen-eared observers". Clearly these were the people with more accurate discrimination - there's obviously no way that pure chance could lead to a number of people out of 500 tested getting 6 out of 7 comparisons right [/B]

PeteH,
That event reported in Stereophile on DBT amplifiers is very interesting. I know it is not everyone cup of tea but most people who wrote letters in response seem keen that blind testing has a positive influence to real hifi development.

For me if you assume all amplifiers are different and this is a 'scientific fact'. Then the test was a good study designed to test how many people with an interest in hifi could tell them apart. I hope you agree that it shows very well that not a lot actually could. In other words at least there are very few 'golden ears' in that test group who could pass if ask to tell amplifiers apart with DBT.

I am not saying in this forum most of you are deaf or do not have golden ears. DBT is still the best research tool for genuine design & development of hifi. It is the best tool that will answer whether certain things like are some cables better then others. Perhaps it does show that not everyone should use DBT when choosing their next hifi toys.

I certainly would like to read more about subject. Do you know of anymore references?

 

[sideshowbob]

I'd also be 100% up for doing a level matched blind listening test to verify that CD players at different price points DO sound different.

My view certainly isn't that all CDPs at different price points sound the same, in fact I've said the opposite. I'm reasonably certain, for example, that I could pick out my old Meridian 588 from my new Sonneteer, they sound quite different I think. The first's a player with whizzy new 24/192 DACs and the second isn't. The Meridian has a full-bodied presentation, the Sonneteer definitely doesn't. I would probably find it more difficult to tell one 24/192 or 24/96 or whatever player from another, and my recent experience confirms that same DAC=very little difference, regardless of cost, brand, PSU arrangement, transport, whatever.

I'm not calling for blind testing, although I'm very happy to take part in such a test if anyone else is up for it. It would be instructive, if nothing else. I don't rule out that others may consistently identify differences I can't. The bat eared GrahamN for example.

-- Ian

 

[Robbo]

You are clutching at audiophile straws dude and you know it.

Why

Because I can tell the difference between my old and new player, and cant be arsed to set up a DBT? FFS, even my girlfriend who was in another room when I first set up the new player was amazed at how much more life and energy was in the music, and she didnt know it was even in the system.

If you were a more regular forum visitor you would have noticed that my recent player change was an enforced change due to my much cherished dpa setup (which is no longer repairable)developing a fault. My new player actually cost me less than my dpa stuff cost me many years ago.

So Lawrie, when you buy new kit, do you carry out DBT? Have you also carried out tests between budget decks and your expensive Michell? I am sure you must have done, because you are not a hypocrite, are you

 

[PeteH]

Originally posted by michaelab
No Pete, you misunderstand me. The above assumes that the testing methodolgy is 100% reliable which it clearly isn't. See above. It's not so much that the answer must be wrong but that the testing methodolgy must be wrong.
[/B]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. The blind testing data that we have, such as it is, does not show that all amplifiers sound the same, etc. etc. as shown in Leventhal's elegant and unarguable statistical analysis paper in the JAES paraphrased in Stereophile, see http://www.stereophile.com/historical/141/ for a discussion (although ignore the editorial comments such as "Les Leventhal dropped a bomb into the pro-ABX waters" when in fact he did anything but). However, said data does cast rather a lot of doubt on the subjective reports frequently seen concerning cabling, system racks, M*n* etc. - "suddenly I was hearing my system for the first time" and variations thereon. It seems hard to believe that such-and-such a tweak was really a life-changing aural pleasure when in fact without looking you can't readily tell whether it's in place or not.

The crux - as Leventhal demonstrates - is that the differences involved are small and not readily apparent under conditions such as hitherto normally used for ABX testing (either that or the differences are entirely imagined, but let's not go there for now ) . OTOH I believe it has also been demonstrated that the aural memory is pretty hopeless for performing comparisons over a widely spaced interval, so having owned the new component for a month any improvements you've noticed are perhaps at least as likely to be due to you having forgotten what the old one sounded like.

We can and should acknowledge the limitations of blind testing, and there's certainly plenty of room for improvement via clever experiment design. Saying that the testing methodology "must be wrong" if it produces a result you don't believe in still isn't all that helpful IMHO though

 

[HenryT]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
I would probably find it more difficult to tell one 24/192 or 24/96 or whatever player from another, and my recent experience confirms that same DAC=very little difference, regardless of cost, brand, PSU arrangement, transport, whatever.

I guess as always, there is a problem here of guaging or conveying the "magnitude" of differences that each of us experinces. The huge difference I experience could be insignificant to you.

I would still go on to assert however that I would disagree that even players built around the same DAC can sound very different in presentation to each other. Does an Arcam Alpha 9 sound very little different to a full dCS set-up, both use the dCS ring DAC? Quite a few players use the Burr Brown 1702 DAC chipset, there are different ways of using a 1702, you can use more than one 1702 in either a "parallel" or "dual differential" configurations for example - both produce different sonic (and lab measureable) differences which I also reckon I could pick out in a blind test.

Originally posted by Robbo
If you were a more regular forum visitor you would have noticed that my recent player change was an enforced change due to my much cherished dpa setup (which is no longer repairable)developing a fault. My new player actually cost me less than my dpa stuff cost me many years ago.

I'm sure you'll be told that that just gave you the excuse to swap boxes that you wanted to all along by the nay sayers!

 

[GrahamN]

Originally posted by Robbo
So Lawrie, when you buy new kit, do you carry out DBT? Have you also carried out tests between budget decks and your expensive Michell? I am sure you must have done, because you are not a hypocrite, are you

I'd go a bit careful there Neil. If you'd read any of Lawrie's posts recently, you'd see that's exactly what he does (although I can't remeber ATM how "double" his blindness is). One result of this is confirmation of his downer on Wadia stuff . This may post-date the Michell though.

 

[Robbo]

Graham,

Well I am just asking the question, as he seems to be so in favour of this type of testing. Frankly though, I couldnt give a monkeys, as I suspect we both have very good systems, even if we do use different methodology when evaluating kit

 

[sideshowbob]

Also, budget TTs rarely sound as good as more expensive TTs for very sound mechanical engineering reasons, and different cartridges and arms can sound as different to one another as different speakers I think. Certainly my experience suggests jaw-dropping improvements that retain their jaw-droppingness when swapped out happen more in the analogue than digital realm, but that's very likely simply because I like TTs more than CDPs, and care about them more. I can live with either a cheap CDP or an expensive one, but would find it hard to revert to a budget TT, even though I had one for years.

-- Ian

 

[wadia-miester]

For Most of us it boils down to the individuals point of reference, the one he or she uses to judge the equipment being evaluated, Now I do agree with Ian (shock horror) on certain points of the Jaw drop syndrome, how do you measure a jaw drop, is one person jaw, faster than another
We all look for different things in our music, if you put 10 people in a room a system, play a piece of music the all like and know well, you'll get one than one answer as to what the all felt.
To me Jaw drop is a fundemental difference nothing less,
I can get fundemental differenices, by changing a cyrus to a bryston or an arcam to a belcanto, same for speakers, also cdp's
now to some people a Jaw dropping difference is no more than yeah I can hear a difference, but whats all the fuss about?, others it's jeez thats wow mate, so quantifing JWS thats a tuffy.
But do remeber what person 'a' uses as a reference, isn't what person 'b' may use.
So whether you feel it's large and others are 'yeah right', maybe a context is called for. Wm

 

[sideshowbob]

I do agree with Ian (shock horror)

In that case I must be wrong, I take it all back.

-- Ian

 

[bottleneck]

If I were god, Id cast holy warts on the words 'double blind testing' and 'hifi' when used in the same sentence.

Quite possibly the most boring hifi subject in the world....

Why all of a sudden are we so dumb that we cant trust our ears?

DBT sounds like it has its place......for people who are so thick they would otherwise buy something because it looks good but doesnt make any musical improvement.

Honestly.