ABX test anyone?
Posted by: undertone on 06 January 2004
Here's some interesting findings from those high-end guys at TAG.
ABX Listening Test. Can you trust your senses?
ABX Listening Test. Can you trust your senses?
Posted on: 06 January 2004 by NaimDropper
I'm planning on trying an ABx test with a friend's Levinson/B&W system. He's got some bug about a $3000 US interconnect that he bought on ebay and I'm going to test it against a well-made home brew cable. Same for his exotic speaker wires.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has tried a blinded ABx test with, say, a HiCap and a SuperCap.
Of course, the time switching would be a hassle and there's no accounting for things to warm up or run in.
I'm game to test it at my place! (Somebody would have to supply the Super...)
David
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has tried a blinded ABx test with, say, a HiCap and a SuperCap.
Of course, the time switching would be a hassle and there's no accounting for things to warm up or run in.
I'm game to test it at my place! (Somebody would have to supply the Super...)
David
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by JohanR
quote:
Of course, the time switching would be a hassle and there's no accounting for things to warm up or run in.
With a friend doing the switching (obviously some one else has to do this if it is to be a blind test) the time for switchover should be under a minute. And the equipment surely whould keep it's temperature for a couple of minutes when unconnected?
A month ago I did a blind test myself with an LP that was recorded digitally on one side and analog on the other. Result after six tries? Yes, one can safely say there is a difference detectable by me and in my system.
JohanR
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by Andrew L. Weekes
From the link above: -
"The actual process of the test was to play 30 seconds of A followed by 30 seconds of B then 30 seconds of X, where X could be either A or B."
In my view this is why they got the results they did!
I know personally I'd need far more time in order to determine such differences, in the order of days.
It should also be noted that their conclusion is misleading as stated; "Our conclusion is that there were no audible differences between the components on test."
A more accurate conclusion would be that the contributors were unable to determine an audible difference, using the methodology presented.
Andy
[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on WEDNESDAY 07 January 2004 at 13:42.]
"The actual process of the test was to play 30 seconds of A followed by 30 seconds of B then 30 seconds of X, where X could be either A or B."
In my view this is why they got the results they did!
I know personally I'd need far more time in order to determine such differences, in the order of days.
It should also be noted that their conclusion is misleading as stated; "Our conclusion is that there were no audible differences between the components on test."
A more accurate conclusion would be that the contributors were unable to determine an audible difference, using the methodology presented.
Andy
[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on WEDNESDAY 07 January 2004 at 13:42.]
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by NaimDropper
I agree, 30 seconds is too short and "no difference" should come with qualifiers!
David
David
Posted on: 07 January 2004 by greeny
quote:
"The actual process of the test was to play 30 seconds of A followed by 30 seconds of B then 30 seconds of X, where X could be either A or B."
In my view this is why they got the results they did!
I know personally I'd need far more time in order to determine such differences, in the order of days.
I totally agree Andy.
I have found frequently that even compairing vastly different components over a very short period of time it is difficult to determine real differances. It usually takes me a few hours (if not days) with one component before changing to another before I can be confident in my opinion. I had to borrow the CDS3 for a long weekend before I was convinced it was much better than CDX/XPS
But there again I've probably just got cloth ears.