|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Why Is An ABX Box Required? A Proposed Solution! posted by tomservo on January 8, 2007 at 19:06:56:
Hello Tom,I know that the idea behind DBTs is to take away the knowledge of “which is which!†Through past experiences I don't believe that I allow my biases & preferences to influence my choice when I listen to one component vs another. So I find DBT to be unnecessary. I'm NOT saying that to ruffle feathers or for shock value. The reason I believe this to be true in my case is I have on more than a few occasions prefered the component I thought was:
1)Uglier (I actually prefered a DIY amp to a Sonic Frontier)
2)Less expensive (I prefered the $900 Audio Analogue Puccini to the $2500 Krell KAV-400xi)
3)Made by the less well-known manufacturer (In the instance above I WANTED to buy the Krell. It was more well known, had more power and most people wanted a Krell amp! But the Audio Analogue "sounded" more like what live unamplified music to me, so I bought it.)
4)Chose what went against my personal beliefs (When I was first convinced wires do indeed "sound" different from each other. I didn't believe wires could influence the sound. So why didn't my preference and biases prevent me from hearing a difference?)I know most of the proponents of measurements vs subjective listening don't believe what I've said above because it shoots holes in their beliefs, but it's the truth. I went from being an Objectivist to being a Subjectivist because of these very things happening. I also know that just because in my case these are the facts, that doesn't mean biases & preferences might not influence another person. My goal of this post is to try and bridge the two opposing groups by finding whatever common ground we share and making DBT's more Subjectivist friendly, while maintaining their integrity!
Tom "if" a difference is actually being heard when a component is changed in a sighted test, then that same difference should also be heard via a blind test where there are intentionally no clues other than whatever you hear, as well! Most medical blind tests the proponents of audio DBTs cite as proof that DBTs work i.e., an A vs B where the outcome of taking a real drug thought to be a drug vs a sugar pill thought to be a drug etc are closer in application to my proposed manuel switching of wires via a person who's unseen by the person/people taking the test and who's unaware of the purpose he's switching the wires. Than a DBT that requires 2 additional components be installed (ABX Box & ICs) that are of unknown "inertness" -- do they or don't they influence the outcome?) Wouldn't you agree?
Ideally, we require a situation where the only thing new or different is what you’re comparing. Inserting an ABX box & additional ICs is quite far from this ideal. My proposed solution should be able to withstand the scrutiny of the “central scrutinizerâ€, so of course it would mean following the “rulesâ€. I don't see one reason my solution couldn't pass these rules provided:
1) The people performing the test are qualified in how to setup and run a proper DBT, by the "rules" like you said.
2) It's these people who should hire or obtain a volunteer that would manually switch the wires. Let's refer to him a Mr X.
3) Ideally Mr X would/could be isolated in a separate soundproof room. This room could be right behind the source. That way the wires from a CDP could pass directly through the wall and be kept to 1 to 1.5 meter.
4) Mr X would be informed that when he saw a specific light come on he could either leave the wires as they are or switch them to the other amp. To prevent the possibility of time somehow providing a clue. Mr X would always signal he's completed his task (also by a specific light) at either 1 min or 30 sec intervals. Mr X would keep a record of which amp the wires were attached to after every light signal.
5) Being isolated and unaware of the purpose behind switching the wires Mr X would be unable to provide any clues to the person/people taking the DBT.This wouldn't be easy to setup, but no properly setup DBT is. The ONLY possible problem with this proposed solution is the 1 min or 30 sec intervals between switching might be considered by some as too long between listening. Also there's no way to provide instantaneous switching. I don't view this as a problem, others might. I would greatly prefer this type of DBT where everything except the 2 different amps, preamps, CDP, interconnects etc being tested reamins the same and there's no additional components added.
All in all I cannot see why this would be any less valid a DBT than one that uses an ABX box and the additional interconnects that requires.
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Why Is An ABX Box Required? A Proposed Solution! - thetubeguy1954 10:07:19 01/09/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
