View Single Post
Old 02-25-2010   #111
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 64
Talking Re: High end processors VS low end processors/receivers, hardware differences?

Originally Posted by Daniel-a View Post
I once was like you Dave, a DBT believer until I was fool by such a test. ( I think I already talk about this here before).

DBT are contrary to what you think scientifically flaw when they are used for HIFI evaluation.


In a scientific experiment, only one parameter is supposed to be change.

This is where DBT are inherently flawed, not only does more elements changed they are all changed: different amp, different preamp ( hopefully, it won't be a crappy receiver), different loudspeakers, usually unknown music ( please, no test tone) and worst off all, different room.

With such a setting it's no surprise that DBT give always the same result, no difference.

I prefer the way David did a bind test. He had changed only one element and didn't tell is friend about it. His friend notice an improvement ( was it?). this is much closer to scientific experiment than the usual DBT that the believers want us to believe.

There is one HIFI mag that do something similar, UHfmag.

They use a listening panel, and a reference system. A high resolution system that stay the same for a long period of time ( a real reference). When they do there blind test, only one person know what it is ( name, price, etc). Each panelist take notes. Each panelist can ask to listen again to one component. Listening is done over many hours. They use the same procedure for amp, preamp, source and...cables. Most of the times their notes agree but not always. Sometimes manufacturers get ****ed at them because they say it as it is. Some less expensive component performing better than more expensive ones.

I remember such a test about cables, where there was a consensus: don't buy the more expensive cable, the chep one is so much better ( it was the same company).

p.s. Dave, are you related to the troll. it seams that you appeared at about the same time when people were telling about his different nicknames that he uses. What's more, sometimes your posting happenned right after his, confirming his saying.
No offence , just wondering.
No no troll, the guy is barely literate in English and asks questions that betray ignorance. As I inferred, in fact.

No, DBT is not inherently flawed. Using a DBT to test more than one parameter at a time is a flawed test design caused by the tester.
Yes, DBT should change only one item at a time or a single parameter of an item. That is why I think its difficult to do DBT for equipment, too many variables.Everything has to be set identically. That would have to include not only tone conrols, but Dolby, etc etc., and, say, with preamps or receivers, are those chips and augmentations identical? Not likely Who can afford to run a lot of tested between, say, amps. All the amps being considered would have to be there, that would be expensive and a hassle. I did do a DBT for Bob Carver once, after first just listening to one, then the other, while knowing which was which. The DBT had a surprising result, which gave more credence to the DBT . Cables are MUCH easier to test with DBT thatn, say, amps, preamps, speakers. A bunch of cables can be tested without a huge hassle. I am particularly in favor of such tests for cables because of the hype and the ridiculous expense and profiteering, not to mention the BS. And the fact that the huge amount of money wasted to fill the pockets of modern snake oil purveyors could be well spent on better speakers, where the improvements are much more noticeable anyway. Even if, say, a $1,000.00/meter cable could sound better than a $25.00 monoprice cable, the difference would be very very subtle, otherwise this would not be so controversial in the first place. Even DBT tests by audio magazines reveal that those auditioning just can't hear the difference even if they insisted they could prior to the tests.
So, spend the over $900.00 savings on, say, front speakers. The improvement would be very apparent. Then multiply the number of cables by that savings, and you will get such a large sum that could be much better spent on speakers, that you would have a much improved 5.1 system that anyone could enjoy more!!
PS you have used "there" where "their" is the correct term.
DaveLadely is offline   Reply With Quote