Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

Err...... Thankfully you are not a god.

Otherwise Hifi will still in the dark ages.

To be honest I don't understand what is so evil about 'blind' listening. If we from now on refer to it only as the Art of Critical Listening would be ok then?

 

Because documented reality is that in a sighted hifi evaluation you are using every sense. And there is good evidence that your ears get a very low priority. If you trusted your ears then you would listen 'blind', paying attention to levels etc. And wouldn't be so averse to the idea, however hard it is to actually do.

Paul

 

Ummm, excuse me, but blind testing is actually the 'new rock'n'roll'.

The following quote from speaker manufacturer John Dunlavy shows how he managed to convince some audiophiles that they could hear (and describe) totally *non-existent* sound changes. No speaker cable was changed, he just 'pretended'. But they still heard big differences. That's kinda, like, quite interesting.

QUOTE: "Indeed, during these comparisons (without changing cables), some listeners were able to describe in great detail the big differences they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the participants were never told the NAUGHTY TRUTH, lest they become an enemy for life!) "

Whole article link http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

 

Question..........................

Whats the difference between a double blind tester and old skool naim electronics?

Answer.................................

None, there both totally dry & bloody relentless

 

Hi notaclue,
Many thanks for that posting re the "great cable myth" from John Dunlavy.
It seems to pretty well support Peter Aczel and his view that electrons do not know or care what kind of wire they are flowing along nor do they care about the direction. And most important ... they do not contribute anything significant to the sound. Hence purveyors of expensive cables are charlatans ....what does that make the purchasers???

 

To encourage experimentation with objective testing because I think people should try it even if they don't like it or think it's futile, or will ignore the results.

There are some rules for obejective testing, such as it must be blind, level matched and there must be a series of trials (16 or so). So, if you are a subjectivist and want to show that objective testing is worthless, then these are the groundrules for getting started. I say this because there are a handful of objectivists, and some middle-ground types who haven't got the rules straight.

As an aside this topic boiled over again, when Wadia Meister (the subjectivist) alluded to a blind test at the bake-off.

Now let me clear up a couple more factual errors

Steve Toy: 13 out of 16 is better than 5 out of 5 - it's a statistical fact not an opinion..

PeteH: I can't decide which side of this debate your on Your cetainly not help by quoting Stereophile who cynically interpreted Levinthal's paper for their own ends.

Moreover, you say, as Leventhal demonstrates - is that the differences involved are small and not readily apparent under conditions such as hitherto normally used for ABX testing. This is NOT what Leventhal said at all - it may be what Stereophile think he said. Leventhal is talking about the probability of detection being small, not the quality difference being small.

Now, as we've heard on many occasions here and elsewhere, the subjectivists report obvious differences which are readily detectable, so that the probability of detection is high. It's about detectability. It's not the magnitude of the quality difference - which is good becuaes no one can agree on whether changes are small or large - but on how readily detectable the change is.

Now, let's turn that around for fun If we double blind test people, with say 16 trials, and they hear no difference (and I won't list a string of papers where that is the case), the consolation prize is that we may have commited a statisical error but that for that to be the case their ability to discriminate has to be moderate

Let's suppose you review what I've written and refute double blind testing on the basis that the detectability is small. Then I ask you what is the point of any kind of dealer demo? Or more interesting, if you undertake a small number of trials (AB swaps) at a dealer, that your purchase isn't based on random choice?

And this is the dilemma:

If you think the detectability is high "I can easily tell the differences", you should prove it in a blind test.

If you think the detectability is low, accept that your choosing your toys at random.

I would be deeply insulted by the Goodmans quip, except for the fact that my "entry level" three way active speakers were designed by an ex-Goodmans engineer called Billy Woodman

 

You guys should strike a compromise and employ the latest offical audiophile double blind testing tool. It comes in a tasteful emerald green colour, scientifically proven to reduce error by the nth degree in the innacurate brain of its owner. Elastic jaw drop cord sold seperately.

 

....and we prefer the deity of progress.

Each discovery brings us one step closer to infinity and absolute truth.

Church:

:kneel:

Science class:

:kneel:

 

Nice one cookie. I prefer the model which covers the mouth and nose of the tester, preventing him from breathing. With this model, you never actually find out which piece of kit the tester prefers.

 

Very good. The one illustrated is just a prototype model. Your suggestion would be a huge step forward on the original design.

 

LoL Cookie

 

Can you get an optional Blue LED & analy retentive neon sign that flashes on and off when 'test is in progress'

 

come on guys. blind testing is useful in some contexts. for example when manufacturers are revoicing the next generation of their model line. i suspect this is why you get an odd / even cycle of kit that you like or dislike. also in magazine testing it lends an air of scientific veracity to proceedings.
pesonally i subscribe to the have it in your syustem for at least 2 weeks and then replace it with what was there before school of testing this allows you to give the new kit a fair shot at warmi9ng up, trying it out with lots of different bits of music and then going back to your old kit to see if that jaw dropper you had at the start is really better or just different.
it's up to the individual as to how they make their purchasing decisions, whether blind abx, totally subjective or knee jerk sheepism if the individual is happy then that's what matters.
cheers


julian

 

What went wrong with it, out of curiosity? Still can't get over how good "Romeo and juliet" sounded on that rig - or the White Stripes for that matter - roll on Friday when I see them in the flesh

 

Having never conducted a double blind test or been part of one (at least not audio, only display tests where the method clearly works), could the sceptics please explain why they aren't a good idea?

Is it just a case of not organising the correctly or is there a fundamnetal problem that makes audio different to say, medicine?

Cookie, if you are so against scientific progress please make sure you never get run over, or at least make sure its fatal.


Cheers

Jason

 

There are fundamental problems that make blind testing audio entirely different (and therefore IMO, invalid) to blind testing as used in science labs where it is absolutely the only way to conduct proper experiments. They were nicely outlined by joel's post back a page or two:

Michael.

 

Do you mean that double blind tests is to be considered as a scientific experiment?

Is there anybody in the forum who believes that double blind tests are to be considered like scientific experiments?

Can someone also explain me what is so scientific about them and why are they so good?

thanks

 

This is perhaps a typical illustration of the jaw drop phenomenon as shown below, courtesy of my own desktop laboratory. Therefore how does one go about determining the 'actual' jaw drop quotient independently of time in absolute reality, regardless of the factors which contributed to the 'jaw drop' in the first place, such as aesthetics, audio brilliance verified with blindfolded certainty, or all manner of whims and associated tomfoolery. Of course if we are discussing in terms of multi-dimensional physical reality, is time an actual element of one of these dimensions, thus necessarily being factored in to the whole equation. Perhaps cable A or cdp B has no inherent goodness, but is an organic entity, fluctuating between good and evil sonic signatures. Or perhaps time is not of reality but a subjective derivative of snake oil, the removal of which would enable one to confer absolute properties upon said audio wonders, with a fixed calculated jaw dropping quotient trundling forth into our consciousness. In which case it would be satisfying to know of our own susceptibility and foolishness, and just regret our inability to observe first hand the known universe and its echos through space, not time.

Can we please observe the following chart (ensuring that our ears are plugged so as not to corrupt the signals registered on our retinas) and with mathematical certainty, extrapolate the fixed jaw drop quotient of any audio product (which would arguably fit nicely into this plot).

I did not have a textbook to hand so any errors in my above propositions and interpretation of interstellar structures cannot be weighed against me before God.

time on the x-axis ; 'jaw drop' quotient on the y-axis

 

If it were possible to reverse the effects of 'progress', then there would be no wonderful automobiles, in which case, i wouldn't have to worry about getting run over. But as it stands, you are quite correct, and i am fortunate that we are able to repair ourselves sufficiently in the event of such an unfortunate incident, courtesy of progress.

 

Then your back to the 'Numbers game' again a superiorly measuring cdp or amp, isn't always the best sounding one imho.
Paul Miller has on more than one occasion mentioned that by the Jitter/ disortion graphs he produces with his (hi-q) software, he could give a good indication of how it was going to sound, (possible J.Atkinson of stereophile as well).
Question is, the technicaly ( the best on paper), are the best sounding?, I know I don't always use the best capacitors I could, to produce the sound I want, because, all circumstances are different and what suits one application, certainly doesn't fit another. Wm