Firstly, let me say that I intend no offense to anyone who doesn't have (or want) high-end audio gear. It is expensive and to get full enjoyment from it, one must commit to actually sitting and listening intently to the program material, as opposed to simply going about one's business while "background" listening. Time is valuable and allotting time for serious listening may not be in the cards.

That being said, do the results of the poll here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....opic=1073&st=0&

further suggest an overall lack of validity to the so-called ABX testing and "transparency" results that are being reported on this forum?

My contention is simple: if the majority of people here (and elsewhere) are using rather low-end gear for their "good" audio system, it is likely that the computer gear they are using is as low-end (to be clear, I don't know of any high-end computer audio equipment as compared to the high-end separate amp, pre-amp, source, loudspeaker set-up of a non-computer based audio system...computer environments are not conducive, and I believe, antithetical, to high-end audio playback). As such, how can one honestly put forth test results when the equipment being used is incapable of revealing the true performance of the source material? As an extreme example, I have never been able to burn an audio CD (using EAC to rip and using the best media available) that sounds as good as the original audiophile-quality recordings that I have attempted to duplicate. I would suggest that it will never happen considering that even the best consumer burners and the dye-based media we have to use cannot ultimately compete with the technology being used by professional audio labels. On the other hand, if I did my comparison testing with a computer-based audio set-up using consumer gear, I would probably conclude that it could be achieved. It could also be achieved if I was partially deaf...get my point?

Usually, for tests to be meaningful, something must be said about the hearing ability of the testers and the quality of the equipment in the playback chain. Rarely (if ever) is this info mentioned in the test results on this forum, and when it is, it generally corroborates my suggestion that the equipment is "low-end" (referring to the hardware not ears ).

Other test procedure irregularities crop up in open (uncontrolled) invitations to submit test results, but they are too numerous to mention.

So, while the tests may be fun to do and fun to discuss, they fall far short of being good tests.

Is this supposed to be assumed, or do others really believe in the quality of the tests? If so, why?

Thanks.

As you obviously take pride in "committing to actually sitting and listening intently" on your "high-end gear", why don't you show us what a good ABX test is supposed to look like by proving, say, this:



On a less sarcastic note, I don't have high-end gear myself (though I wouldn't agree with your assertion that I hate listening to music ), so I have no reason to object to ABX results on low-end equipment.
I'd also guess that high-end equipment is probably *more* revealing when it comes to artifacts, so if someone can ABX something on crappy speakers I don't think he would fail on a high-end system (and ABX results can only show that there *is* a difference anyway, they can never prove there is *no* difference).

Uhuhu. Only possible reason for this to happen is jitter on source cd not being eliminated by DAC.

So, may I suggest you to buy a decent DAC to complement your "high-end gear"?


(Edit: note that the reason for differences I mentioned above is purely theoretical - technically it's the only possible difference in the audio reproduced from a burned cd, but nobody was ever able to prove that it might be audible in some cases)

Don't feed!

I am with schnoffler.

You need no computer to do an ABX. It just happens that there's a PC program to do it easily. Take a friend, take him to randomize the source and the copy using your equipment, and get you to find out which is which.

If you really pass the test as easily as you suggest, then, It most probably will end you doing something wrong as CD to CD copies can only vary in error correction or jitter, and this is not day-and-night things.

Sentence to remember: Not everything you hear is there.

You'll get lots of flaming with these undocumented statements

I made an AB comparison with a friend using a Rotel preamp, a 200W mosfet power amp, Infinity Reference II speakers (+/-2dB 30Hz to 32kHz), a Marantz CD-94 MKII player, an M-Audio Revolution soundcard, Audioquest interconnects for the CD player and a diy crappy cable for the soundcard, Audioquest speaker cables and played the same songs through the player (CD) and soundcard (compressed to mpc, using foobar) while trying the best to keep them in sync. The output volume for the sources was matched as best as we could.

Switching the preamp input source, the difference between the PC an the Marantz was minimal and my friend didn't manage to distinguish on a constant basis between the two - it was just luck.

Of course this is not an arm&leg/a piece gear but still it was pretty conclusive for me. I don't need a cd player

Actually the sound is better IMO using the sound card directly to power amplifier path than CD player-preamp-poweramp. Not AB'ed though.

Just my 2c.

edit: typos & this was most likely an A/B comparison... I guess.

FooForThought:

You're violating rule # 8. Without proof for your claims there can't happen any useful on-topic discussion based on your 1st post. Therefore I close this thread. If you can provide double blind test results for your claims feel free to PM me and I'll re-open it. If you have questions about how to perform such a test without PC that can't be answered using the search function feel free to post them.