Devialet Chat

(13-Dec-2019, 20:34)baconbrain Wrote: [ -> ]Over on the ASR forum a „what appeared to be“ new member blind AB tested the ER against a standard netgear switch and stated that he couldn’t tell the difference most of the time.

Would be great if one of our long term members here would give it a try.

Any takers?

Went looking for his report. His first report was of a sighted test he conducted on his own and he acknowledged that there can be issues with sighted testing but he later said that he and a friend could not reliably identify the ER in subsequent blind testing but that he his final impression was positive for the ER. His comment was:

"Blind testing the ER against a "generic" Netgear switch.....two of us were not able to consistently pick one switch over the other but there was a slight preference for the ER in the overall results. We just could not reliably pick the ER out each time. Doing a "sighted" test I did have a preference for the ER each time." 

So, a slight preference for the ER in blind testing and a preference for the ER every time in sighted testing. That's a "weak positive" in favour of the ER from him in my view, not a "no difference" view.

As I've said, I should have mine in a bit over a month and I will  post my observations when I get it but I'm not in a position to make the sort of tests that Amirn is requesting and I have no faith in his "pull one cable out and plug another in fast" approach to making the swap from one switch to another and I won't be trying that. If I do that fast enough to get an immediate swap from one connection to another I don't have time to get back to my listening position to hear the swap and if I make the buffer large enough to give me time to get back to the chair then I have no way of knowing when the change occurs. I think you really need to know when one input stops and the other starts if you're going to compare 2 different devices. I can report my impressions but that's all I can do.

If we're ever going to see proof of Uptone's claims, what we need is a statement from them about what should be tested, how it should be tested  including what switches Uptone made comparisons to, and some sort of explanation of how the measurements relate to listening results. Then we can start to see people testing the same thing and find out whether everyone gets the same measurement results or not, and also start to see how measurement results relate to what people hear. If there are differences in switches then not every other switch should deliver the same measurements and switches which measure closer to the ER than others should also sound closer to the ER than others. That kind of thing is what we need for proof. Comparing one switch to the ER and ignoring the possibility of that switch being similar to the ER while others aren't doesn't prove anything and if the measurements Amirn made aren't the measurements that are required to show a difference then that proves nothing either. And if his measurements  don't prove any anything then there's the possibility that the reason he didn't hear anything was expectation bias on his part.

I'm not saying Amirn got it wrong. I'm saying that we don't know enough at this stage not to have doubts about any measurements or listening observations, whether those measurements and observations support Uptone's claims or not. All anyone has is their own listening results and some people hear a difference and some don't. That means some people are right and some people are wrong but we have no idea which people are right and which people are wrong.

If the buffer in Amir's test dac is as large as he describes he'd effectively be listening to the 'other' switch for a while when swapping cables. For the " pull-one-cable-and-put-the other-in" thing to work, the buffer in the playback device should be reset when swapping IMHO. To do this play 30-40 seconds of a track, pause, and have someone change switch - then re-start the track. The buffer(s) will be reset at every track re-start. That will give a chance to detect a difference...

Just one comment on @David A 's post, not wanting to start an argument, but: if all we have are people's listening results, even if they disagree there is no "right" and "wrong" involved.  Even if it were later "proved" that there was a difference in SQ (for whatever reason) I don't think you could say someone was "wrong" for reporting in good faith what they heard.

(14-Dec-2019, 10:00)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]Just one comment on @David A 's post, not wanting to start an argument, but: if all we have are people's listening results, even if they disagree there is no "right" and "wrong" involved.  Even if it were later "proved" that there was a difference in SQ (for whatever reason) I don't think you could say someone was "wrong" for reporting in good faith what they heard.

Which was really my intent in regards to the blind a/b tests within this forum. I have more faith in the listening impressions of the members here than elsewhere.

(14-Dec-2019, 10:00)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]Just one comment on @David A 's post, not wanting to start an argument, but: if all we have are people's listening results, even if they disagree there is no "right" and "wrong" involved.  Even if it were later "proved" that there was a difference in SQ (for whatever reason) I don't think you could say someone was "wrong" for reporting in good faith what they heard.

I disagree.

If a difference in SQ is proved, those who said there was a difference would be proven right and those who said there wasn't a difference would be proven wrong. On the other hand if it were proven that there was no difference in SQ then those who said there was would be proven wrong and those who said there wasn't would be proven right. At present nothing is proven but that doesn't mean that no-one is right  or wrong, it just means that we don't know who is right and who is wrong.

Let's say that there is a terrorist attack in your city in the middle of a crowd so there's lots of witnesses who subsequently give their statements to the police. What we have is a lot of witness reports and there will be differences in those reports. Some of those differences will arise because they come from people in different locations around the scene so they were seeing things from different angles so one person might have seen the licence plate on the terrorist's car and another may not have been able to see it but other differences arise from mistakes. One person may report that the terrorist had red hair and another that they had black hair. When the terrorist is captured, it is found that they have red hair so the person who said that the terrorist had black hair was wrong.  They're wrong whether or not they reported in good faith. When people tell us their listening results they're giving us a witness report and each detail they report is either right or wrong in the same way as each detail in the witness reports of the terrorist attack is either right or wrong. Reporting that you heard x in good faith does not mean you can't be wrong about x, it just means that if you're wrong then you're wrong because you made a mistake rather than that you're wrong because you lied about the fact.

(14-Dec-2019, 13:28)David A Wrote: [ -> ]

(14-Dec-2019, 10:00)thumb5 Wrote: [ -> ]Just one comment on @David A 's post, not wanting to start an argument, but: if all we have are people's listening results, even if they disagree there is no "right" and "wrong" involved.  Even if it were later "proved" that there was a difference in SQ (for whatever reason) I don't think you could say someone was "wrong" for reporting in good faith what they heard.

I disagree.

If a difference in SQ is proved, those who said there was a difference would be proven right and those who said there wasn't a difference would be proven wrong. On the other hand if it were proven that there was no difference in SQ then those who said there was would be proven wrong and those who said there wasn't would be proven right. At present nothing is proven but that doesn't mean that no-one is right  or wrong, it just means that we don't know who is right and who is wrong.

Let's say that there is a terrorist attack in your city in the middle of a crowd so there's lots of witnesses who subsequently give their statements to the police. What we have is a lot of witness reports and there will be differences in those reports. Some of those differences will arise because they come from people in different locations around the scene so they were seeing things from different angles so one person might have seen the licence plate on the terrorist's car and another may not have been able to see it but other differences arise from mistakes. One person may report that the terrorist had red hair and another that they had black hair. When the terrorist is captured, it is found that they have red hair so the person who said that the terrorist had black hair was wrong.  They're wrong whether or not they reported in good faith. When people tell us their listening results they're giving us a witness report and each detail they report is either right or wrong in the same way as each detail in the witness reports of the terrorist attack is either right or wrong. Reporting that you heard x in good faith does not mean you can't be wrong about x, it just means that if you're wrong then you're wrong because you made a mistake rather than that you're wrong because you lied about the fact.

David,

I understand the point you are making and respect that. In this case, we have an unknown source claiming a subjective test result. My question is if a similar subjective result can be achieved from a more reputable (imo) source. It is not about proving if someone is right or wrong.

Hope that helps.

BB

@David A For the sake of clarity, I always understand listening reports to mean "I personally do/don't hear a difference" rather than an assertion that "there is universally a/no difference". From your comment you seem to be adopting the latter interpretation.

@baconbrain

The source of a "similar subjective result" would have to be another listening report, one from a different listener. For that source to be "more reputable (imo)" then that listener would have to be someone you have reason to be able to trust more than you trust an unknown listener. That "more reputable" source is capable of error, just as any listener is capable of error and you may well be able to find a someone who is a more reputable source in y our opinion who gives you similar report to the unknown source but you have no way of knowing whether both got it right or if both got it wrong, and it's capable for both to get it wrong but for different reasons.

Getting another subjective report doesn't really help. Getting a lot of other subjective reports and looking for how much they match and for what ways they differ when there are differences can help. If there's a strong majority reporting similar things then it's more likely that what they're reporting is right than if only a few are reporting that and most aren't. but it is possible to fool a crowd. Stage magicians do that every day of their working life. If the majority of listener reports say that the ER makes a significant difference then is that consensus more plausible than an audience who all tell you that they saw someone just pull a rabbit out of a hat?

You're looking for some kind of a guarantee, and we all want that when we're spending money. I don't think you will find the kind of guarantee you're looking for about the ER at present.

@thumb5 ,

I'm not adopting your latter interpretation. If someone tells me that they personally do or don't hear a difference then I assume they're telling me about their personal experience but if they tell me that there is or isn't a difference then I assume that they're telling me what the facts of the situation are and that my experience will be the same as their's unless I make a mistake. The words the person uses to describe what they're reporting are important and if they don't specify that they're specifically making a statement about what they personally experienced then I assume that they're telling me something that is more universal than that.

I put it as: "[making] an assertion that there is universally [a certain experience]".

You put it as: "telling me what the facts of the situation are and that my experience will be the same as their's unless I make a mistake".

Those are the same things, are they not?

I remain surprised at your interpretation of personal listening reports, but of course we don't have to agree about that (or indeed anything else).