Why are digital streaming equipment manufacturers refusing to answer me?


I have performed double blind tests with the most highly regarded brands of streamers and some hifi switches. None have made any difference to my system on files saved locally. I have asked the following question to the makers of such systems and almost all have responded with marketing nonsense. 
My system uses fiber optic cables. These go all the way to the dac (MSB). Thus no emi or rfi is arriving at the dac. On top of this, MSB allows me to check if I receive bit perfection files or not. I do. 
So I claim that: if your dac receives a bit perfect signal and it is connected via fiber optic, anything prior to the conversion to fiber optic (streamers, switches, their power supplies, cables etc) make absolutely no difference. Your signal can’t be improved by any of these expensive pieces of equipment. 
If anyone can help explain why this is incorrect I would greatly appreciate it. Dac makers mostly agree, makers of streamers have told me scientific things such as “our other customers can hear the difference” (after extensive double blind testing has resulted to no difference being perceived) and my favorite “bit perfect doesn’t exist, when you hear our equipment tou forget about electronics and love the music”!
mihalis
When people get the X test with audio equipment I suspect many are trying to figure out if the treble, bass, image depth, tonality, etc. match A or B, not asking themselves how much they like the presentation and then seeing if that preference is closer to how they felt when they listened to A or B. Of course we’ll never know if that’s true because unfortunately I don’t run an audio testing laboratory.

And yes, there is learning happening in the memory patients, but the area of the brain that makes explicit identification judgments does not have access to it. I’ll also note that when they fail to recognize a previous acquaintance that new/old judgment is even easier than matching to a particular object as required to succeed in ABx. Despite utter failure of explicit identification, the preference system chugs along just fine, leading to adaptive decision making.

This dissociation is why it is incorrect for you to state that, "if you can’t match A or B to X, then you can’t tell the two apart and you hence have no preference as you don’t as actually prefer either."

Anyway, it’s clear you’re going to continue to believe that matching judgments are the appropriate way to do A B testing. And that’s 100% not how I would do it if I were optimizing people’s decision making. It doesn't matter if you can pick your stereo equipment out of a lineup, it matters whether or not you like it. So be it...
And it is quite clear that you will continue to misunderstand and misstate the processes involved in an ABX audio test, even though you admitted you really don't know what happens.  But, nice to state, effectively that "we'll" never know because "you" don't run an audio testing laboratory. I am sure no one who does this style of test has any experience in testing human perception ....

It's rather "interesting" that "memory" or pathways, or whatever, are good enough to "remember" well enough to know if they prefer A or B, but not well enough to remember if they prefer C more than A, or C more than B.  That is what you are stating even if you think you are not. 


You whole argument is based on assuming a process that you admittedly don't know, and then assuming it must not be the one you feel it should be or would be more successful. That is bad science.


As a counterpoint, people who are not "audiophiles" have been shown, several times, to be more adept at detecting minor differences when they are trained, i.e. taught what the differences are likely to be, and given examples. They create the appropriate pathways for detection of differences.  To be clear, more adept than "audiophiles".  Based on communication of audiophiles when they compare cables, certainly on here, I would say that preference is exactly the method they use, or at least claim to.

Here is the thing. When comparing two of anything in audio, like in AB or ABX testing, the descriptors are invariably related to preference. More natural. Improved soundstage. Pinpoint imaging. Tighter bass. Sweet mids. These are comparative descriptors, not unary descriptors. That indicates preference.


Let's not forget that while double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard, there is no more success achieved in AB testing either, which as per the used descriptors, are preference related.
audio2design
... double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard ...
Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard" for evaluating audio equipment. Not even close. It appears that really upsets you.

That doesn’t mean that ABX is useless, of course. But it’s just a tool - a single, solitary tool.
And there is it folks, can't win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.

Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard"

Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement. I think that is why it is so threatening, because it is not measurement based. It is based on one thing, and one thing only, human listening. Your ears and brain. No scopes, no meters, no Audio Precision equipment, just some stereo equipment and your ears.


What's funny is in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blind testing. Cake and eat it too?  Do please try to be consistent.

Lot's of people have lots of "beliefs". Lots of people don't have the educational or practical experience either. Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one.
audio2design
And there is it folks, can’t win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.
Nope, I offered no insult. There’s no need for you to pretend you’re insulted simply because someone disagrees with you.
Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement.
That’s correct, of course. The only function of an ABX test is to determine if the listener - under the test conditions - can reliably distinguish whether "X" is either "A" or "B".
... in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blindtesting. Cake and eat it too? Do please try to be consistent.
No, I never, ever said that. Ever. Please try to be accurate when you make claims. It’s bad enough when you use illogic to make an argument, but it’s worse when you fabricate claims made by others.

I have pointed out that Wireworld offers a comparator to use in evaluating cables. It’s a little odd that you seem to insist that others do this experimenting for you, but I understand that if you were to actually conduct such testing you fear the results might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs.
Lot’s of people have lots of "beliefs" ... Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one.
Yes, and your measurementalist "belief" is that ABX is the gold standard for audio testing. As I’ve noted many times previously, it’s a very useful tool, and I’ve been an ABX test subject and found the results v-e-r-y interesting. It absolutely has a place in audio testing.

But ABX testing is just a tool - a single, solitary tool. It is not a path to Absolute Truth. That apparently offends your belief system.

Taken to the extreme, there are those who actually believe  "if you didn't hear it blind, you didn't hear it." Obviously, many sighted people can hear just fine.