Bueno, la espera creo que ha valido la pena. Nuestro webmaster Gsus ha dedicado mucho de su tiempo libre a recopilar y poner orden en la información recibida y el resultado está aquí: http://www.matrix-hifi.com/marco.htm
La crónica completa de la reunión de este año.
Saludos
Alf
Molingordo 5
De Edu no te puedo decir nada excepto que el trato que he tenido con él ha sido magnífico.Kir escribió:Y sabes por qué?Rozalen escribió:Luismax no se explaya con sus cajas
Porque es un vago, un holgazán, un perezoso, un haragán, un indolente, un zángano y un gandul.
Y un flojo.
P.D: Lo de Edu es porque realmente no tiene tiempo
Sobre Luismax... ARGGGGG, me controlo y no digo nada aquí: Se lo soltaré todo en la Fonta el próximo día que nos veamos.
Saludos.
Jose Luis.
Gracias a todos por las felicitaciones.
Ha sido trabajo de equipo y se ha podido hacer gracias a todos los que habéis aportado algo, tanto aparatos, artículos o fotos.
Como ya le dije a Kir, el año que viene se va a MG a escuchar musiquita, nada de pruebas ni ciegas, ni vistas, ni catas, ni leches
Saludos,
Gsus.
Ha sido trabajo de equipo y se ha podido hacer gracias a todos los que habéis aportado algo, tanto aparatos, artículos o fotos.
Como ya le dije a Kir, el año que viene se va a MG a escuchar musiquita, nada de pruebas ni ciegas, ni vistas, ni catas, ni leches
Saludos,
Gsus.
-
CIBERPROTON
- Mensajes: 315
- Registrado: Vie 13 Feb 2004 , 14:26
- Ubicación: en la esquina NO
-
Luismax
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 7081
- Registrado: Lun 03 Nov 2003 , 18:44
- Ubicación: MatrixHell
- Contactar:
Un momento, eso si que no, flojo no.Kir escribió:Porque es un vago, un holgazán, un perezoso, un haragán, un indolente, un zángano y un gandul.
Y un flojo
Lo otro si.
Tanta discrección obedece a las directrices sobre política de seguridad nacional e internacional.
“No es señal de buena salud estar bien adaptado a una sociedad profundamente enferma”
Espanol es el language del foro, pero no hablo espanol.
Just a quick message para decir gracias por el paper about Molingordo y especially about las pruebas ciegas. Muy very interesting.
Vosotros did mucho pruebas ciegas before, pero these ones are much better explained.
Los comentarios de las people es muy importantes. Muchas pruebas ciegas are rejected because the listening conditions are supposed not to be optimal.
Aqui, no es lo que los listeners have said.
Thank you again !
Just a quick message para decir gracias por el paper about Molingordo y especially about las pruebas ciegas. Muy very interesting.
Vosotros did mucho pruebas ciegas before, pero these ones are much better explained.
Los comentarios de las people es muy importantes. Muchas pruebas ciegas are rejected because the listening conditions are supposed not to be optimal.
Aqui, no es lo que los listeners have said.
Thank you again !
Pio, welcome to this forum. Don't worry, you may use english if you prefer so, however, your "spanglish" is good enough for most to understand.
Yet again, welcome, and thanks for the thumbs up. If you wish, let us know what's the most striking part of the DBTs performed, and what's your opinion about our findings.
brgds, Marcelo
Yet again, welcome, and thanks for the thumbs up. If you wish, let us know what's the most striking part of the DBTs performed, and what's your opinion about our findings.
brgds, Marcelo
"Uno es dueño de lo que está dispuesto a perder. De lo demás es esclavo."
Thanks. I can speak french too, but I guess that more people understand english than french.
I'm not surprised at all by the results. I've taken part in a compilation of most double blind tests published on the Internet. CD players are extremely difficult to distinguish from each other. You have yourself shown it several times, in Matrix-hifi.
Chaud7, from the audiophilile des gens heureux forum finds sktriking the fact that the two CD players were from such different times behave so alike. It is said that between the two models, DAC technology has improved a lot.
I think that in order to show this improvement, we would need extremely silent listening conditions (closed headphones, for example), and extremely noiseless recordings.
I was more interested by the fact that a listener got a success caused from a 0.3 dB volume difference between the DACs, but not so surprised, because it fits with known data : http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm
Finally, what strikes me most is the serious with which the test was organized. Taking into account the listener's impressions is is what was missing in previous tests.
In order to prove an audible difference, correct masking of the source, good randomization and significant results are enough. But in order to show the similarity between two sources, completely different means are required. The listeners must be in listening conditions that allow them to hear the difference when the test is not blind.
Very few tests ensure this condition. The most striking ones were the powed cord tests of Jason Victor Serinus, where a listener found the test too easy because the power cords seemed to be playing at a different volume (and he got exactly 50 % of good answers) ! And the one of Kiang, with various detailed comments about the sonic differences between two identical cables, and even the amount of money (up to 220 €) that they would spend in order to replace a cable... by itself !
It's a pity that this test results are not clearly published. You have to browse into several links in order to get a good account of it :
http://www.auricles.com/new_page_41.htm
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614.html
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-8.html#p113020
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-19.html#p115713
http://www.auricles.com/Kiang_Power_cable_test(2).xls
In Molingordo, you have ensured that listeners found the whole system, the room, and the listening conditions good enough for the differences to be audible.
I'm not surprised at all by the results. I've taken part in a compilation of most double blind tests published on the Internet. CD players are extremely difficult to distinguish from each other. You have yourself shown it several times, in Matrix-hifi.
Chaud7, from the audiophilile des gens heureux forum finds sktriking the fact that the two CD players were from such different times behave so alike. It is said that between the two models, DAC technology has improved a lot.
I think that in order to show this improvement, we would need extremely silent listening conditions (closed headphones, for example), and extremely noiseless recordings.
I was more interested by the fact that a listener got a success caused from a 0.3 dB volume difference between the DACs, but not so surprised, because it fits with known data : http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm
Finally, what strikes me most is the serious with which the test was organized. Taking into account the listener's impressions is is what was missing in previous tests.
In order to prove an audible difference, correct masking of the source, good randomization and significant results are enough. But in order to show the similarity between two sources, completely different means are required. The listeners must be in listening conditions that allow them to hear the difference when the test is not blind.
Very few tests ensure this condition. The most striking ones were the powed cord tests of Jason Victor Serinus, where a listener found the test too easy because the power cords seemed to be playing at a different volume (and he got exactly 50 % of good answers) ! And the one of Kiang, with various detailed comments about the sonic differences between two identical cables, and even the amount of money (up to 220 €) that they would spend in order to replace a cable... by itself !
It's a pity that this test results are not clearly published. You have to browse into several links in order to get a good account of it :
http://www.auricles.com/new_page_41.htm
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614.html
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-8.html#p113020
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-19.html#p115713
http://www.auricles.com/Kiang_Power_cable_test(2).xls
In Molingordo, you have ensured that listeners found the whole system, the room, and the listening conditions good enough for the differences to be audible.
Hi Pio, as Kir says, it's very interesting to have all those links. Unfortunately, I don't read french, so I can't really follow up with the development of your forum.
However, I'll dig the links you attached and will read it asap.
We try in Molingordo to refine the conditions each time. We'll soon start working on the english version of the last meeting. We went the extra mile to assure the listening conditions were acceptable, so we had the DBT room measured prior to start with the tests.
We choose that particular room because of its dimensions, it's a 20sqm room that mirrors many of the rooms used for home listening, however, we treated the room acustically with commercial panels (akusticell).
How about SS power amps? We find that using the proper wattage for a given speaker is enough, and no "high end" amp sounds different from a cheap but well builded one (excluding tubed amps).
For us, the most critical section for any system is the room and the speakers (besides the actual source, that is, the recording) and find that more often than not, this is set aside by many or its importance is simply denied by those whom swears hearing differences in between, i.e., cables.
The interaction in between a speaker, its placement, and the room (and its modal responses), if not tamed, results in a masked sound, with excessive bass boost, and for some of us (if not all) equalization is a must.
No matter how good the listening room might be, there's always a lot to improve by using an EQ (matter of fact, we are beta testing a handy, pen drive loaded, linux based ecualizer using convolver technique).
We are fine tuning its application to resolve some background noises, but I tell you, it's a fine exercise of geniously applied technology, and its free to anyone interested enough to give it a try.
Brgds, Marcelo
However, I'll dig the links you attached and will read it asap.
We try in Molingordo to refine the conditions each time. We'll soon start working on the english version of the last meeting. We went the extra mile to assure the listening conditions were acceptable, so we had the DBT room measured prior to start with the tests.
We choose that particular room because of its dimensions, it's a 20sqm room that mirrors many of the rooms used for home listening, however, we treated the room acustically with commercial panels (akusticell).
How about SS power amps? We find that using the proper wattage for a given speaker is enough, and no "high end" amp sounds different from a cheap but well builded one (excluding tubed amps).
For us, the most critical section for any system is the room and the speakers (besides the actual source, that is, the recording) and find that more often than not, this is set aside by many or its importance is simply denied by those whom swears hearing differences in between, i.e., cables.
The interaction in between a speaker, its placement, and the room (and its modal responses), if not tamed, results in a masked sound, with excessive bass boost, and for some of us (if not all) equalization is a must.
No matter how good the listening room might be, there's always a lot to improve by using an EQ (matter of fact, we are beta testing a handy, pen drive loaded, linux based ecualizer using convolver technique).
We are fine tuning its application to resolve some background noises, but I tell you, it's a fine exercise of geniously applied technology, and its free to anyone interested enough to give it a try.
Brgds, Marcelo
"Uno es dueño de lo que está dispuesto a perder. De lo demás es esclavo."
...
Si a 2001 lo doy vuelta es 1002, ahora le quito los ceros, y estamos en presencia de PIO 12. Joer vosotros preferis hablar en inglés, menos mal que no eligieron el esperanto, hubiera preferido el spanglish, ¡¡¡¡ ése sí lo entendía !!!!! lo lamento, la ignorancia hace en mí estragos. SOPSAU
Mi mayor aporte al Audio es no haberme dedicado a él.