Some really good points about A B which I will address here. Since someone attacked my person for some mysterious reason, I am forced to explain that these tests were always done with a group of experienced audiophiles in Asia and in Europe. To them we added some friends who aren’t audiophiles to make sure we don’t have any bias from that. We did double blind tests, not triple blind. The groups were not the same always. And the tests were two hour affairs on occasion and not some extensive lab test. I am claiming nothing other than what this meant for us.
The post earlier about how the ear isn’t made to compare is I believe correct but our methodology probably eliminated this bias.
First we listened with knowledge of what equipment we are hearing. Then we listened to equipment which was given a code (not A or B but eg 346 and 589). And finally we listened to unidentified equipment in random order and asked to identify which code it was.
Various pieces of equipment had different success because many obviously do sound different. But with equipment which shouldn’t really make a difference according to some logic, we had the following results
1) consistently, expensive equipment was identified as better and we could all elaborate that we heard specific differences. I certainly did think so
2) consistently, when the equipment was labeled, we could not necessarily say if it was overall better or not than the other but we developed certain characteristics we each thought we heard. These characteristics were not consistent between each listener but the same for each listener
3) not one person was able to identify these differences with more than 20% consistency vs 1 or 2!!!
Take me out of the equation since I am apparently a troll. The people in these rooms are audiophiles with significant experience, from different cultures and of different ages. We were stunned. (Non audiophiles usually abandoned us after 30m).
What this meant for us? If we smell something doesn’t make sense, we look into it so that we don’t end up spending our savings towards the wrong equipment or system. Ie we try to reduce bias. As a result we feel we have better systems with less equipment and less cost.
This is how this worked for us. I am sure everyone has their way and I am not making any broad généralisations about anyone else. I did feel validation when I read the seminal work of o toole and some sites which do measure equipment extensively with correlation to performance potential.
To each their own, although I hope at least some of you may consider these points.
troll out!
