But the CD was a different master and the dCS was not tested blind, so those findings are moot.
I agree that method is important, but I think @Gary_Foux earns some respect for trying. Blind tests are tedious and boring, and even with some method flaws, itâs better than 99% of those opinionated, open golden ear âtestsâ, that audiophiles, youtubers and press do. Also, in this case, itâs impossible to achieve statistical significance, since no difference was found. The test with the CD and the Bartok, on the other handâŠ
1 Like
Not sure I understand this. Statistical significance is achieved when a large enough number of samples are used.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Whether something is significant or not statistically is not dependent on sample size. Wikipedia is much more reliable than it used to be, so this pretty much covers the topic.
2 Likes
I agree that method is important, but I think @Gary_Foux earns some respect for trying. Blind tests are tedious and boring, and even with some method flaws, itâs better than 99% of those opinionated, open golden ear âtestsâ, that audiophiles, youtubers and press do. Also, in this case, itâs impossible to achieve statistical significance, since no difference was found. The test with the CD and the Bartok, on the other handâŠ
Again it depends on how you do it, and you donât know itâs better as we donât know exactly how the test was conducted. You can have significance around similarity in a T test, you test a hypothesis that you canât hear a difference and if the results are always the same that shows a level of certainty. But the control would be something of similar expense or cheapness.
It strikes me as a much better way to conduct a view for the purpose of shortlisting products a to b,to gauge a selection of reviewers views, a selection of customer views (normally mostly pre buy as they will be biased to say the product theyâve bought is better, regardless if they would then think differently had they have bought the other product), and what various dealers think of product a versus b. Also then what a buyer thinks on trialing. If they all think similar than that has much more significance than people professing they canât hear a change, simply because the sum of all the opinions has been reached independently and credibly. It also eradicates the measurement approach and makes hifi a question of consensus groups liking things based on subjective opinions adding quite a bit of objectivity into the mix.
1 Like
What I mean is that it is not possible to prove the non-existence (no audible difference) of something. More samples will give better data, but still.
Not sure I understand what you mean, as in a test if I coin toss many times and get 50:50 or nearly that, then you can have a significance level of close to or at 100%
Tossing a coin is not the same. Think of this extreme case: You do the blind test with 100 000 participants. However, they are all middle aged audiophiles, and canât hear a thing above 15kHz. They hear no difference in blind ABX. From this, you canât conclude that there is no difference, because one day, a young person with perfect hearing might come along and hear a difference, with statistical certainty.
1 Like
Coin toss analogy was to your point you canât prove the non existence of something and you can. The reason you have controls in tests is to weed out variability eg poor hearing.
âŠâŠalso Statistical certainty doesnât just prove a positive but a negative. Itâs about relationships. You ask the question about something (a hypothesis) and then set to show it or not, if that hypothesis is correct or not and sufficiently related. The statistical significance of heads over tales is equal (hypothesis), over say 100 tosses it might be 95%, over 10,000 it might be 99.99% etc.
Yes, but I canât see how we can achieve this in these type of tests. Itâs not like a pharmaceutical study. Itâs a bunch of enthusiasts doing what they can with limited rescues. I say that is still far better than sighted listenings, biased by assumptions and magical thinking.
You lot are all raving mad 
I think someone can tell if something sounds different/better/preferable even if it wasnât a 100% controlled and scientific test. Usually the sure way is to just ask the missus 
14 Likes
Very interesting test. I tweak speakers and that is where differences can easily be heard.
I read discussions about the sound of modern high-end opamps. They are really good nowadays and hardly bettered by discrete designs. One can also make them sound pretty much the same, such as Carver did with amps in the 80-s, as long as they are of very high quality (around $2,50 for a Texas Instruments). The cost of a high end dac chip is probably $5,- or so, maybe less when you order thousands of them.
So Bluesound designs a good power supply and so on and asks $600,-. Lumin doesnât even make itâs own very good power supply when it needs the sBooster?
Itâs good news to hear that you donât need to spend an extra 2400,- for a Lumin that has the same kind of chips/opamps inside.
Ha ha⊠thatâs my favorite audiophool anecdote: â⊠I connected my new streamer/DAC/cables/power cord and my wife immediately noticed the difference from the kitchen table downstairs!â
8 Likes
Ha ha, my missus just want the visible equipment to look good, the sound is secondary.
1 Like
I have participated in a number of blind tests over the years which surprised me. Usually in the same way as this report, that the differences are either subtle or indistinguishable. Comparisons between power amps, preamps, interconnects, speaker cables, power cords, DACs & CD players have turned up many a surprise to me and friends. (Note that not all of them showed no differences, just more than I expected.)
In this case there are some factors which might explain why they sounded alike. Two streamer/DACs both based upon old technology and playing compressed audio files.
Should one expect the Lumin D2 to sound better? Yes, based on their claims and positive reviews. Certainly the power supply and analog output stage should be much better in the Lumin. And the Wolfson 8741 is held in higher regard than the inexpensive TI DAC in the Bluesound.
Did you listen only to TIDAL MQA or did you also try any well-recorded 16/44 FLAC cuts?
I had the same experience in a comparison between two powercords at an audioshow. With an obscure piece of music (special recording this and that bla bla) from cord 1 to cord 2 many people agreed to hear an improvement, but I could not. I donât have audiophile ears, only âtechnicalâ ears from tweaking x-overs, going back and forth between two values for a coil for instance.
I asked the manufacturer to go back to cord 1 but he refused. Is he only the well instructed sales guy or does he know what he is doing.
I donât have audiophile ears so I donât hear all the differences between powercords, plugs and connectors. My wallet is also not that big so I am fine with that!
Best sound of a show once was coming from an audio-fun room, hired by the Etude (vintage speakers) fanclub with Etude speakers, Threshold amps and a record player. They also played well known music.
1 Like
Con man performing the oldest trick in the book. Second time you hear somehing, you hear more details etc.
1 Like
What are audiophile ears? Either you hear something or you donât. And if you donât, why worry? Youâll save a lot of money.
Most people who claim to have especially astute hearing do just that â they make a claim. Anyone can claim anything, but when it comes to having their claims put to the test, well âŠ
I also suspect that many will agree with the vendor simply because they donât want to seem deficient in their hearing abilities. And then thereâs salesmanship to get the customer to buy what they obviously donât need.
Expensive products also tend to look pretty. But that has nothing to do with sound.
1 Like
Usually with a prompt from the salesman: ââŠnow, listen again, and notice the improved separation, air between the instruments and greater bass slamâŠâ And, of course, you hear these things because you are focused on those details and you donât want to appear incapable of hearing the difference.
2 Likes