Are CD players really digital...

Robbo, surely not, you must be mistaken I feel your getting mixed up with another forum maybe sir
Unless Tones our serial Poo Poo artist has been breeding at an alarming rate, then it must all be a bad illusion. Wm

 

Equally there seem to be quite a few guys who think analogy, metaphor and double-talk eliminate the need for any kind of validation.
If you want to prove something works or doesn't, double-blind testing is the way to go - it works in every other field, and while not perfect perhaps, is the closest we can come to an objective evaluation.
Most of us are not fussed enough to do it, but if I was in the market for a 1,000 pound a metre length of wire or a 20,000 pound amplifier, I would think it well worth doing.

 

But why would I need to prove that something works? If I like it in my system, then thats good enough for me.

 

That's fine, it's your money Robbo If it was my money, I might be tempted to go about doing things in a different way. Nothing wrong with that, either, surely?

 

I suppose not.

TBH, there are quite a few things in my system that I probably could double blind test as they make such a big improvement. The s/sink under the CDP would be one such thing. However, I'd rather just get on with enjoying the music, as my system does that rather well now!

 

Double blind testing certainly has its place. I have found it useful sometimes when I'm asking my wife to tell me which of two variations she prefers, for example when I'm testing the speakers with and without filters or two drivers compared with four, etc.

For double blind testing to be effective I have to ensure as far as possible that only one 'variable' is being changed at a time so the volume level must always be equalized (for example).

I can think of three main limitations to this sort of testing in the field of hi-fi:

Firstly, when switching from one speaker to another you can't switch off the working of the brain (although clearly on this forum many try very hard indeed ). Let's say we have two speakers, one neutral and flat, the other coloured in its frequency response. If we listen to the coloured speaker for some time our 'ears' get used to its colourations and it sounds normal to us. If we then switch to the neutral speaker it will sound coloured with a 'reverse impression' of the colourations of the first speaker. Just like staring at a black dot on a sheet of paper for a while then seeing a white dot when we stop. So, the compensation of the human brain is the first thing that makes double blind testing difficult.

The second difficulty is that many pieces of equipment need to be warmed-up, run-in or whatever before they give of their best.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we can't always come to an instant decision in this field. Personally, I have to live with a piece of equipemnt for some time before I get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses and know whether I want it in my system.

So double blind testing has its place but, in the final analysis, normal listening to music rules.

 

You can't "switch off" your brain off when you are not bouble blind testing either.
Clearly many people also try very hard to switch their brains off when they not double blind testing.

 

Agreed... :MILD: