Tír Na HiFi

jkeny wrote:

DaveF wrote: Exactly. Not looking for definitive proof or such but its a very worthwhile experiment. Time and time again it has been shown that the ears are easily fooled. If in this case there is enough evidence from the above tests that differences are correctly identified a high percentage of the time then it should harden our resolve to dig further into the technical side to find out a why. Once the mechanism is understood clearly, it can be further improved then. Right now it all seems rather hit and miss without a clear understanding of whats going on underneath.

DaveF, I've no problem with doing a blind test but you do realise MQN was already tested blind, twice, by Clive - once inadvertently, by himself & another time in an arranged blind test where he had a number of listeners who were mainly disinterested in the outcome & all seemed to identify differences & agree on which MQN version was best.

Maybe Clive can say more about these blind tests & fill in some of the details as they seem to have been glossed over or missed?

Edit: I'm not sure if further discussion of this belongs in the MQN measurements thread

DaveF wrote:also, turning your pc sideways will give you a much wider soundstage

DaveF wrote:also, turning your pc sideways will give you a much wider soundstage

DaveF wrote: Well that's interesting on the testing above. Have yourself, Tony and other users done it here?
Agreed that this bit should be continued over on the other thread.

I've performed one blind test accidentally and one on purpose. The on purpose one was with 4 people, individually. I chose versions of MQn which I found to be sound quite different. Their blind test results were the same as my sighted ones. There are many versions of MQn which sound more alike and so are harder to tell apart, these would be a tougher blind test.

jkeny wrote:

DaveF wrote: Well that's interesting on the testing above. Have yourself, Tony and other users done it here?
Agreed that this bit should be continued over on the other thread.

It was Clive's post viewtopic.php?p=46281#p46281

I've performed one blind test accidentally and one on purpose. The on purpose one was with 4 people, individually. I chose versions of MQn which I found to be sound quite different. Their blind test results were the same as my sighted ones. There are many versions of MQn which sound more alike and so are harder to tell apart, these would be a tougher blind test.

which was a direct reply to your previous request for a blind test. You must have missed it?

jesuscheung wrote:

nige2000 wrote: just to over complicate things
as usual
Last time in tonys there was some other differences that will have had an effect too
I was running r2 without any script
my ram at that time was unable to work at 800mhz like tonys and i was at a determental 1066mhz
and had not yet figured out that running the haswell cpu at 800mhz was optimal

im ready for my rematch

dont forget CPU voltage affects SQ. you need more voltage than minimum for best SQ.

jkeny wrote:DaveF, I have done blind tests on early versions on my own but probably not with 100% scientific rigour & could tell the difference between them. Once I could hear the differences & have established to my own satisfaction that I was not fooling myself, I'm not really that bothered in further blind testing.

nige2000 wrote:

jesuscheung wrote:

nige2000 wrote: just to over complicate things
as usual
Last time in tonys there was some other differences that will have had an effect too
I was running r2 without any script
my ram at that time was unable to work at 800mhz like tonys and i was at a determental 1066mhz
and had not yet figured out that running the haswell cpu at 800mhz was optimal

im ready for my rematch

dont forget CPU voltage affects SQ. you need more voltage than minimum for best SQ.

I had a play around with the cpu voltage but ended up leaving it at auto
maybe I should try again

rough guess what voltage do you think I need for 800mhz
its certainly not much