What *does* make a difference?, Doesn't ABXing show more differences on some things? Options

[BearcatSandor]

I've been reluctant to post this because they seem like stupid questions, but my beliefs have been turned upside down so much this week i donno what's "stupid" anymore. So, here i go, even though i'd bet that all three comparisons below would be detectable.

Note that none of this is about perceived quality. It's about not being able to tell appreciable differences via ABXing.

I've been reading up on ABX tests all week and i just give up. I don't get it. There seem to be a few stand-outs such as cables, and devices with D/A converters that don't make any difference, but i'm about ready to throw up my hands in frustration. I just don't get it.

Speakers can be so physically different. I've got the Anthony Gallo Acoustic Reference 3.1's. They are about 3' tall, have rounded "cabinets" around the cones, a cylindrical tweeter and a 10" side firing driver. How can they sound the same as a speaker built around a single fostex driver, or an 8' tall 3' wide Sound Labs panel speaker or a Wilson Audio Maxx ( http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_images/...groom_large.jpg ).

It is the consensus of the forum that tube amps, class t/d and class A/AB of the same relative power sound the same for the most part? What about different tubes in tube amps? Is tube rolling pointless from a sonic perspective? I mean again, tube amps. and the other types are working in a very different physical manner so how can they not be detectable from one another?

I saw some snickering at room treatments. Is the forum suggesting that room treatments and digital room correction make little to no difference in sound quality? I mean hard/absorbent surfaces do effect what frequencies reach your ears at what times (or at all), so my mind says that logically has to make a difference. Digitally flattening out a response curve has to effect the sound, right? Now, i'm not talking about the *value* of such treatments. Most of the time i see an expensive bass trap or a pricey colorful audiophile pillow that i'm supposed to put on my wall i think "I bet my mate who's a quilter could make me something that would do that same thing or i could just hang a blanket on the wall" Regardless of whether or not you use the $2k room treatment, change your curtains or move the couch for the same effect, the effect wouldn't likely be a placebo would it? Why would recording studios and concert halls work so hard at it?

Bearcat

This post has been edited by BearcatSandor: Nov 8 2010, 06:02

[greynol]

Not only is that overly-simplistic, it is simply not true.

A very obvious example as to where this "universally" applicable generalization falls flat on its face is with perceptual coding where problems with speakers and listening environments can actually break masking.

If this thread was resurrected in order to argue the merits of double-blind testing it will be closed since the poster already has another open discussion on the topic.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 9 2012, 05:12

[item]

Not only is that overly-simplistic, it is simply not true.

A very obvious example as to where this "universally" applicable generalization falls flat on its face is with perceptual coding where problems with speakers and listening environments can actually break masking.

If this thread was resurrected in order to argue the merits of double-blind testing it will be closed since the poster already has another open discussion on the topic.

Of course, under specific alignments of random circumstances, multiple imperfections may act to multiply differences usefully. But imperfections and deviations more likely act as a leveler during analytical testing. It's all distortion - noise screwing up accurate results.