Well yes, if worrying about minute things makes you happy. The human ear is even more easily tricked than the eyes. The whole reason Dolby Digital and DTS work at all is the fact that you can't hear some sounds buried under stronger sounds. In my work, I',m on movie mixing stages for weeks at a time during the mix of a feature film. The difference in sound going from the original digital 24 bit PCM master to Dolby Digital (or DTS) is **WAY** more than between any home components could ever have. Trust me on this....

Take a look at other posts by me - you will perceive that I was kidding around. I'm probably one of the most painfully pragmatic people you'll ever meet. It's a curse.

Smile and smell the roses.....

Charlie

OMG. Another DBT/ABX threadfart.

IMO, if anyone feels that all decent components sound the same blinded, then those folks should just buy the cheapest decent components they can find and always wear a blindfold when they use that system. For those folks, the Outlaw 950 sounds just as good as the AVM-20 or even the Krell units.

Also, why would any DBT/ABX advocate EVER post or be involved in such apparently biased and opinionated arena as an online forum??? For those folks who need a DBT/ABX as proof of anything, other's opinions are moot. All that matters for them are the very specific DBT/ABX testing each one of them does for their specific system/room/gear. Even their findings are not applicable to anyone else unless their system/room/gear is identical to the tested one...

------------------
Take Care,
merc

[This message has been edited by merc (edited August 13, 2002).]

I said NOTHING about ABX!! Yes there are differences, but all I said that they pale *by far* from the differences between a master on a dubbing stage and the Dolby Digital encoded copy. I just wanted to put some perspective in this.

Hi Merc

I don't want to get into another long thing, but let me assure you I don't believe all equipment sounds the same, and blind testing can be applied outside the test environment with some degree of statistical certainty if properly done. Drug companies have used it for years.

ABX is a very sensitive blind test method which has been used to reveal differences in how many components sound.

As to why someone pragmatic would participate here, same reasons as anyone else I suppose.

Charlie

Soundhound: True... but you were thinking it.

If not using an ABX box, how would YOU do a DBT between an Outlaw 950 and say, a Rotel 1066?

So, are you agreeing with me that for most comparisons, simple careful crossover listening will do the trick in determining which unit sounds best to you?
Really? Do you work for a drug company?

OR, are you just determining the hearing accuity of the subject? If you are using an ABX box to do the testing, then all you are proving is that your results are valid WITH the ABX box IN the audio loop, and nothing else.

I'm not familiar with the crossover listening technique. Is it a blind test?



It is requred by the FDA.



The ABX box can also be ABX'ed to see if it is audible.

Are we getting into another thing?

Just want to let you know up front - I have no malice for you and I value your opinions.

Charlie

Hey, for the record, I've *never* even taken an ABX type test!! I do it the way you probably do. I listen to one component, then the other, non-blind. I just listen for a profession. As far as doing a 'blind' comparasion between the 1066 and the 950, here's a suggestion. Put up a curtain, behind which are both components. Have someone else connect one, then the other, and keep score on which is preferred by you. Listen as long as you like to each. All day if you want. Do this maybe ten cycles of switching (or not switching) and then have the assistant tally up the score. You very well may get a perfect score, if so, great. That would prove to you at least that there were significant differences. But if you get it wrong more than once, I would question if the differences are significant enough to spend a great deal of money on. Price is not always a guide to quality. There are less expensive components that sound better than more expensive ones - the difference is in the skill of the designer, not how thick the faceplate is.

Charlie: same back at you friend.

I am just a bit rubbed by the notion that anytime/everytime anyone gives an opinion or suggests that one unit is better/worse than another, someone needs to rush in with the DBT/ABX arguement.

Anyone that knows anything about trial design, knows that correctly designed and implemented DBTs are virtually impossible when comparing electronics. An incorrect or flawed DBT may introduce errors which can make the results of the DBT neither reliable nor valid.

BTW, my comment of was un-necessarily sarcastic. Sorry. I've been in the drug industry for almost 20 years and have been involved in the design, implementation, writing and critical analysis of clinical trials much of that time. My wife is published in JAMA and JACC, and currently coordinates clinical trials in leukemia for a major US cancer center. You could say we live clinical trials. So, your comment about using DBTs in the drug industry begged my sarcastic comment. Anyway, do you work in the drug industry as well?

------------------
Take Care,
merc

[This message has been edited by merc (edited August 13, 2002).]