Showing 1 of 1303 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
Is it better than the Liquid Carbon X?
Yes., but they will sound the same, given that both are dead flat with inaudible distortion.
I dont think they are going to sound the same. The liquid carbon is known to be a warmer sounding amp. This is amp is supposed to be completely transparent no added coloration. Plus this amp has a lot more power compared to liquid carbon.
No one has heard it and reviewed, the answers will therefor be murky. Also barely anyone mentions THX was sold by lucas to Razer...
and barely anyone mentions THX do not B2C but B2B...and the guy behind is an AES Silver-Awarded
Being heard as sounding warmer and actually sounding warmer are two very different things. Lots of people swear by high res audio, but when put in a properly controlled blind test, not a single person could tell the difference. Same thing goes for amps. Placebo effects are a huge thing in this hobby. Why do you think Head-fi demands that any kind of scientific discussion be relegated to a specific subforum?
It is a solid state amp that measures as flat. It will be transparent.
AB testing is not everyone's cup of tea. I generally listen to music for hours. I start noticing differences in that much time. In AB testing i get a moments time. Not the same thing.
If someone is trained for AB testing, their results might be useful.
ABX testing, with volume matched to within 0.1dB*, reveals what is actually there. Lots of people perceive differences, but they are almost never due to differences in the sonic performance of hardware. You do not need training for blind testing, as the human brain is quite good at detecting changes.
*The reason for needing volume matching this tight is because volume differences, even those that are so small that they escape detection as being louder, affect perceived sound quality. This is where a lot of people mess up, and a major part of why most reviews of amps and DACs are worthless. Sure they heard a difference, but is it because one actually sounds better, or is it just louder?
ABX testing is about as productive in audio as shoving a picture in front of a photographer for three seconds taken with one lens/camera, than another for three seconds and asking which is better. It has a place in audio and could be done better, but isn't the "we'll-see-what's-going-on-audio-panacea" that the objectivists think it is.
What you are describing is not what an ABX test is. Subjects are, in a proper test anyway, given time to go back and forth between the two known options. It is not "here is A, here is B, now which one of those two is this?". The whole point is to let them compare them side by side, then asking them to identify an unknown to determine if any differences they perceive are real or psychological.