What is so high end about high end?

[Dennis Moore]

Following the suggestion of moderator David E. Bath:
__________________________________________________ ____

> If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story,
> then we might as well pack it in. Most of the mass market electronics
> have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Which does beg the
> question: what is so high end about high end?

A good subject for a thread IMHO. :)
__________________________________________________ ____

Now 'high end' as defined here on RAHE is not high end as
thought of by most of the public. The 'high end' commonly
attributed to magazines like Stereophile and TAS. So I am
not speaking about the 'high end' related to those publications.
I am referring to the 'high end' of RAHE. Something I think
would more properly and honestly be called simply high
fidelity. I also think RAHE would more honestly be called
rec.audio.high.fidelity.

What is 'high end', what is not?

Dennis

[Mkuller]

>"Dennis Moore"
> wrote>
What is 'high end', what is not?
>

Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
here. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To
paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
at all to do with specs. Just the sound. Today, the list would be much longer,
but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
reciever qualify? Probably not.
Regards,
Mike

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:22:18 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

>>"Dennis Moore"
>> wrote>
>What is 'high end', what is not?
>>
>
>Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
>has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
>here. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To
>paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
>with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
>of live, unamplified music in a real space.

A useful definition, with which I concur completely. I also like his
definition of 'The Absolute Sound' reference as being that of a live
acoustic performance in a concert hall.

>When the term was first
>introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
>Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
>at all to do with specs. Just the sound.

Um, actually, you can't have 'high end' sound as defined above,
without good specs. This is not of course a commutative statement!

> Today, the list would be much longer,
>but would include those companies who use actual 'listening to music' as part
>of the design process and take "music reproduction" seriously. Would a Sony
>reciever qualify? Probably not.

Would several other 'mainstream' brands qualify? Definitely. As
defined by Harry, 'high end' qualification has nothing to do with
'designer labels'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Mkuller > wrote:
>>"Dennis Moore"
>> wrote>
>What is 'high end', what is not?
>>
>
>Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and
>has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it
>here.

IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of
the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his
arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was
in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second,
just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine
is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible,
uninformed pish-posh around.

rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is
entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance.
We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the
Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything.

>(Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you
>want.) To
>paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
>with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
>of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
>introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
>Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing
>at all to do with specs.

Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations"
that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the
likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with
reality.

>Just the sound.

Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[Mkuller]

>Dick Pierce wrote:>
>IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of
>the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his
>arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was
>in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second,
>just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine
>is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible,
>uninformed pish-posh around.
>
>rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is
>entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance.
>We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the
>Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything.
>

So does that mean you agree with the definition of High End here or not? The
above definition seems to fit well with the points posted in the
rec.audio.high-end FAQs.

>>(Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you
>>want.) To
>>paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and
>manufactured
>>with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the
>sound
>>of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first
>>introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar,
>>Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has
>nothing
>>at all to do with specs.
>
>Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations"

Perhaps, but that's still High End audio, like it or not.

>that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the
>likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with
>reality.
>
>>Just the sound.
>
>Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything.
>
So High End is about snobbery? I think you could put forth a better definition
than that, Dick. (Your tone makes it sound like you might have been excluded
from the club...)
Regards,
Mike

[Stig Erik Tangen]

Mkuller wrote:
> To
> paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured
> with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound
> of live, unamplified music in a real space.

My impression of "high-end" is based on experiences with so-called
high-end equipment and the taste of audiophiles in general. "High-end",
as I percive it, is to emulate a "live" music event, regardsless of what
recording techniques have been used on the music that is reproduced, and
make this as pleasant as possible for the listener.

This is probably the opposite of a "monitor" sound, where you can hear
every detail that's actually on the record. A "monitor" sound will
unfortunately reveal that the majority of LP's and CD's sounds really
really bad.....

Stig Erik Tangen

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:3%g1b.220123$o%2.102734@sccrnsc02

> It seems that to many "high end" means endorsing outrageous pricing
> and product quackery.

With the focus on retro-technology like vinyl and tubes, and
pseudo-technology like blue lights and badly partitioned CD players, that
does seem to be what a lot of high end audio has become.

>We can probably give most of the credit/blame
> to HP and TAS for this, but we should not forget to give Stereophile
> an honorable mention.

Stereophile differs from the other two in that it does contain some useful
factual content. However mixing true facts with questionable or false
material is an old propaganda technique.

> Both have moved the discussion into the realm
> of components that are priced in the stratosphere, and they have
> generally neglected lower priced products of merit.

My take is that they appear to audio voyeurs.

> "High Fidelity" was a much nicer term. It never seemed to imply
> worship of the big ticket components.

The audio marketplace is now very fragmented. Video and audio performance
and production hardware are important market segments.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
wrote:

>This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
>he insists realism is the only goal.

Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.

>Even though no musical
>system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
>the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
>as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
>admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
>realization of emotional and music.

That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.

>Maybe the following descriptions from the RAHE should guide
>the newsgroup into three parts. Those who deal with high-end
>sound from description a), those who deal with high-end
>sound from description b), and those who believe the two
>can be melded.
>
>__________________________________________________ ____
>a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
>to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors.

>b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
>realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;

b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Dennis Moore]

> >a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
> >to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or
>
> Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors.
>
> >b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
> >realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
>
> b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>

Again this is the objectivist tyranny. a) is a worthy goal
b) is discussed as if it could be anything.

You also mention Mr. Pinkerton that subjectivists claim the
same goal of realism. And indeed they do. But if you can
only duplicate live music inaccurately, or incompletely the
question is what part is most important to still convey
the emotion of music. And it is far from clear that the part
you can measure and use dbt's on is the most important
part. Or that objectively the most accurate equipment does
a better job of it implicitly.

It is very difficult to make good progress toward something
you cannot easily measure. But that doesn't mean it cannot
be measured or that it isn't worth doing. Seems to me most
of the traffic here is slanted toward the part of a) of the
definition of high end in the faq. And that part would better
be characterized as simply high fidelity. The part b) in
principle is what represents the difference between high
fidelity and high end. The goal to not just do the best
measured performance, but to make it easier to emotionally
connect with the music.

And the difference in a) and b) is what causes the constant
bickering. Those who approach reproduced music from the
definition b) angle come from the original HP approach, to
listen to something and see how it affects you. They may
attribute that to the wrong things or to things that aren't
happening. But talk about it that way here on RAHE an they
will be told how it doesn't fit in with real high end as per the
a) definition.

Dennis

[Nousaine]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
>wrote:
>
>>This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
>>he insists realism is the only goal.
>
>Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.

No one suggested that ANY goal is the only way. I only note that music is not
the ONLY program that is deserving and that if any enthusiast looks hard in the
mirror that 'love of music' is more directly and deeply enjoyed in ways other
than reproduction and pretending that 'love of music' is a primary goal for
most audiophiles is simply a conceit.

As if putting a fancy paint job on your race car (new cables) is done in the
'love of speed.'

>
>>Even though no musical
>>system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
>>the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
>>as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
>>admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
>>realization of emotional and music.
>
>That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
>position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.

And his statement creates this special strawman who 'cannot' emotionally
respond to music.

But a high-end response to this is that he must never have experienced a system
good enough to deliver a realistic live experience in the home.

Which is basically what this "love of music" put-down usually comes to. In the
high-end when you refuse to acknowledge that a new wire doesn't improve
playback it's often noted that this person must not "love music enough."

[Steven Sullivan]

Nousaine > wrote:
> "Dennis Moore"
> wrote:

> >Nousaine,
> >
> >You tell me you don't do this for love of music. But for simple
> >realism in playback. And you wonder why you may not
> >have the same experience as one who does sometimes have
> >emotional experience to music.

> Who says I don't have emotional experiences to music? I just have given up the
> conceit that I buy/use audio equipment to increase that enjoyment in respect to
> the art. The art doesn't change with the reproduction devices.

> I watched Susan Tedeschi perform last night in a small open-air ampitheater and
> I loved every minute of it. It didn't lack realism even though not a single
> note was 'acoustical' but played back over a large PA system.

> Did I break a tear over "Miss You"? Sure. Does play back of that song on my
> home system produce the same tear? On a musical level, of course.

> On a 'realism' level? .... no, because her Susan-ness wasn't 30 years in front
> of me.

> But I won't tell myself for one minute that I enjoy reproduced audio for the
> love of music. If the 'music' strikes me with enough power I can enjoy it on my
> 1941 Zenith AM table radio.

...replicating the experience of millions and millions people over the years,
who have 'connected' to music via equipment that wouldn't pass even the least
stringent 'audiophile' muster.




--
-S.

[Steven Sullivan]

Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore" >
> wrote:

> >This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First
> >he insists realism is the only goal.

> Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal.

> >Even though no musical
> >system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate
> >the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts
> >as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while
> >admitting they don't even have the ability to experience
> >realization of emotional and music.

> That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the
> position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e.

If I recall correctly, it's known as 'the absolute sound'.

Or perhaps 'stereophilia'.

No use of the word 'music' in either, I notice.

For that matter, do *any* audiophile publications have the word
'music' in their titles?

[chung]

Dennis Moore wrote:
> Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you
> getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about
> high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as
> defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked
> about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to
> want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned
> in the faq.
>
> Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use
> to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition
> a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF
> (rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they
> cannot change it. Well they can change the faq.
>
> Dennis
>
>

If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?

[Dennis Moore]

Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results.

They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.

But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.

Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. I
find that hard to believe myself. And this difference of long
term satisfaction is what initially differentiated real 'high-end'
equipment (as defined by all the rest of the world not on this
newsgroup) from everything else. Yes, some commercial
high end stuff is snake oil. Most of the supposedly technical
explanations are bogus or worse made up. Yet some of the
better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly
accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.

And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
possible here.

The way some people prove or disprove things is more of an
emotional feeling they have. Why is this, I don't know, but
it seems certain if there is anything to it, it won't show up in
double blind testing. How do you test for it? Even if it is nothing
more than self delusion, it is real in listening to music. And I
don't for a minute think you can take part in tests blind without
it so utterly destroying your emotional reactions that those tests
would only be expected to return to results but random.

Maybe if you had two things in sealed boxes, let people live with
them, and say they were more or less satisfied than the month
before you could. Do the switching blind, switch no more often
than monthly and see where the results took you. I don't see
that as likely to happen.

Dennis

> If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
> create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
> rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
> Asylum where dbt's are banned?
>
> A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
> debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
> necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
> disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
> mentioning dbt's?
>

[Bob Marcus]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> "chung" > wrote:
> > If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
> > create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
> > rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
> > Asylum where dbt's are banned?
> >
> > A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
> > debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
> > necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
> > disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
> > mentioning dbt's?
>
> Following this thread as someone who is still a subjectivist and who has
> been taken aback by some objectivist posts on RAHE I believe that RAHE
> should stay just as it is. The objectivist view is strongly presented and
> defended here, and so far as I know this is the only forum in the internet
> where that is so. It's a minority point of view that is suppressed
> elsewhere. If newcomers are sometimes treated a bit "brusquely" (note:
> understatement) that would seem to me to be an inevitable part of having a
> vigorous debate which may eventually lead to establishing broader acceptance
> of a more rational view of evaluating components. That would benefit all
> audiophiles.
> After all there is always the entire rest of the internet for someone
> seeking the subjectivist viewpoint.
>
> Wylie Williams

Hear, hear! And rest assured, some of us are concerned about the
brusqueness, and are looking for a benign way to address it.

bob

[chung]

Dennis Moore wrote:
> Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
> discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
> idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results.
>
> They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
>
> But something is amiss. Too many components long term
> will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
> same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
> are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
> arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
> again.
>
> Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
> consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.

Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".

You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.

What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?

>Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the
>supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.

Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?

>And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
>possible here.

Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful
discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the
discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and
they were pointed out by other posters.

[chung]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dennis Moore wrote:
>> > Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you
>> > getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about
>> > high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as
>> > defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked
>> > about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to
>> > want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned
>> > in the faq.
>> >
>> > Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use
>> > to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition
>> > a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF
>> > (rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they
>> > cannot change it. Well they can change the faq.
>> >
>> > Dennis
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
>> create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
>> rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
>> Asylum where dbt's are banned?
>>
>> A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
>> debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
>> necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
>> disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
>> mentioning dbt's?
>
> But how can you give dbt's as traditionally practice such "power" when they
> are not unchallengeable?

Well, I see you, Mirabel, Kuller challenging them every day, so why do
you say they are unchallengeable?

Given that dbt's are banned at a lot of forums, I would say that dbt's
don't get nearly enough recognition.

>
> Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
> et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
> double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
> differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
> fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
> fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
> might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least.

I think a lot of posters have voiced their opinions on that paper.

> Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
> were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
> being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.
> This hardly suggests a search for truth.

Has anyone been able to repeat that experiment and arrive at the same
conclusion?

>Rather it has the earmarks of a
> rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
> is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
> healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
> to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
> orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.
>

I don't think Mirabel or Kuller feel they have been beaten into
submission at all. In fact, the casual observer may even conclude that
Mirabel had everyone else beat into submission :).

On the other hand, why not one person has picked up that cable dbt cash
reward?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:47:37 GMT, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
>et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
>double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
>differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
>fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
>fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
>might have an element of truth to them.

No, because the key is still the double-blind element. In fact ABChr
is more commonly used than simple ABX by professionals in the field.
The 'subjectivists' OTOH don't seem able to hear these 'obvious'
differences unless they *know* what is connected.

> Worthy of investigation, at least.
>Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
>were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
>being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.

Did you consider that this *was* in fact sponsored 'research' with an
expected result?

>This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a
>rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
>is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
>healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
>to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
>orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.

The attitude has *always* been that we're all more than happy to
welcome new *evidence* of audible differences, but the 'subjectivists'
never seem to be able to find *any* way of providing it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Wylie Williams]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote
> Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by
Oohashi
> et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
> double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
> differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
> fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
> fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by
subjectivists
> might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at
least.
> Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
> were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
> being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.
> This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a
> rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
> is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
> healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting
observation
> to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
> orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.

You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome
variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively rather
than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are goals
and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of some
contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the
advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original
inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance: "I'm
smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility that
necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much of
this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage of
transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the objective
approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home elsewhere
like the one it has found on RAHE.
Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become
more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you
offered.

Wylie Williams

[ludovic mirabel]

chung > wrote in message >...
> Dennis Moore wrote:
> > Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
> > discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
> > idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results
> > They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
> > But something is amiss. Too many components long term
> > will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
> > same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
> > are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
> > arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
> > again.
> > Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
> > consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.
>
> Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
> No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".
> You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
> reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.
>
> What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
> subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?
> >Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways
the
> >supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.
> Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?>

Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
perception. Everytime I choose MY favourite seat in a concert hall I
choose MY kind of "euphonic distortion". Everytime I listen to
speakers away from an anechoic chamber I'm subject to "euphonic
distortion". Where do YOU listen? Everytime I prefer Merlot admixture
to undiluted Cabernet Sauvignon I'm subject to tasting distortion.
Everytime I choose my seat in amovie house I'm subject to my kind of
"visual distortion'. And so on.
Giving a name is just giving a name. "Distortion" is a bad name.
Funeral Director is meant to sound better than undertaker and
"hospitality class" better than "tourist". Pure science.

> >And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
> >possible here.
>
> Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful
> discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the
> discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and
> they were pointed out by other posters.

I'll speak for myself. When I give an opinion I say it is an opinion
and what to you constitutes "technical meaningfulness" is the last one
of my concerns..
But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
as anything else in life.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:37:50 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

> Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
>giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
>perception.

Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Wylie Williams]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Wylie Williams" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Harry Lavo" > wrote
> >> Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by
> >Oohashi
> >> et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
> >> double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
> >> differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or
a-b-x
> >> fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
> >> fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by
> >subjectivists
> >> might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at
> >least.
> >> Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the
researchers
> >> were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out
as
> >> being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were
raised.
> >> This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of
a
> >> rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here
that
> >> is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe
is
> >> healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting
> >observation
> >> to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
> >> orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.
> >
> > You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome
> >variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively
rather
> >than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are
goals
> >and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of
some
> >contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the
> >advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original
> >inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance:
"I'm
> >smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility
that
> >necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much
of
> >this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage
of
> >transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the
objective
> >approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home
elsewhere
> >like the one it has found on RAHE.
> > Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become
> >more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you
> >offered.
> >
> >Wylie Williams
>
> Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?
It's
> not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.
>
"
"It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
the results.
But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
Wylie Williams

[Steven Sullivan]

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> chung > wrote in message >...
> > Dennis Moore wrote:
> > > Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
> > > discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
> > > idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results
> > > They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
> > > But something is amiss. Too many components long term
> > > will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
> > > same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
> > > are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
> > > arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
> > > again.
> > > Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
> > > consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.
> >
> > Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
> > No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".
> > You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
> > reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.
> >
> > What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
> > subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?
> > >Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways
> the
> > >supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.
> > Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?>

> Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.


Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.



--
-S.

[Bob Marcus]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> . net...

> > Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?
> It's
> > not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.
> >
> "
> "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
> involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
> validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
> the results.

Remember, some people here want to make it seem as hard as possible,
because they don't want to deal with its implications.

Indeed, if you want to do publishable research, it is quite a chore
getting everything right. But as this is only a hobby, you don't have
to take it that far, if you don't want to.

> But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
> am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
> substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
> as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.

Do you have a way to plug in two amps at once and switch between them?
You also need a way to level-match them. That's done at the speaker
terminals with a voltmeter, and I'll let someone who knows what
they're talking about explain that process.

All you need is an assistant who, without your knowledge, flips a coin
and decides which amp gets plugged into which output. That way, you're
comparing two amps, level-matched, without knowing which is which. You
can switch between them at will (which means you can switch back and
forth fairly constantly, or you can listen for a long time to one,
then to the other).

This isn't perfect. Just knowing that they're two different amps might
be enough to make you think they sound different. (Really! Our brains
aren't as reliable as we think.) But you might find that, listening
blind, it's a lot harder to spot the distinguishing characteristics
that seemed so obvious when you knew which amp was which.

bob

[Dennis Moore]

> Imagine that we make a 3rd category of test: 1. sighted, 2. dbt,
> 3. you can't see it, but we tell you what it is. Would this affect
> the outcome?
>
> IOW, what is it about blind testing that makes it so stressful, and
> the results unacceptable?
>
> Norm Strong
>

Let us just say for example you were taking a test to see
which of two pretty girls you preferred, by seeing them in
different circumstances in different pictures. No problem
picking now is it?

Now imagine picking to see which of two nice girls you prefer.
And both were former girlfriends. You were being tested
for your emotional and other reactions. Would this be different
from the other preference test? Do you see the difference?
Can emotions in general be switched up or down and back
and forth during DBT's?

[ludovic mirabel]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:37:50 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
> >giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
> >perception.
>
> Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
> interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
> means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
> effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
> pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

You can't be serious. You do not really believe that what
arrives at my preamp. is "the original sound".
You know better than I do that it is what the particular
configuration of particular microphones that the particular
audio-enginner happens to believe in hears in a particular
concert-hall. Then our engineer closeted in his little room listens to
whatever is coming at him from his litlle monitor speaker and proceeds
to mix, equalise and shape according to his idea of what the "average
guy with the average set" wants to hear.
And the end-result is the D.G idea of what a symphony orchestra
sounds like.
I then listen to it in my room with my standing waves, my room
reflexions and my better or worse components.
Whereupon I fall on my face and say: "Good Lord, this violin
sounds like someone scratching white chalk on the blackboard. But I
must not touch it- this is what DG wanted me to hear and so be it."
Just kidding: I interpose my Behringer digital equaliser and
fiddle with my JVC X1000P Digital Sound Processor and thank my lucky
stars that I got one when it was still available. They don't make them
any longer. "Original sound" rules.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Wylie Williams]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote >
> Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are
> interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which
> means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the
> effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a
> pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'.
>
There is an argument to be made for "a pleasant sound". I have heard
systems described as "accurate" that were not at all pleasant. I imagine
that a perfect system would so closely approach the original sound that it
would satisfy both the soul of the listener and whatever is satisfied by
accuracy. My hope of attaining that perfect system is ZERO, so I have to
compromise. I have to compromise on the components that I use (because of
cost), the room that I use (because of cost) and the software that I use
(because the music I like may or may not be available well recorded) so if I
could be certain it would be a sufficiently pleasant system I would happily
compromise in that direction.
I could justify this by saying that I want the sound not for itself
but for the effect, and tI'd accept an inaccurate effect that is as much
enjoyment as the original sound. If the desired effect were to create a
measurably closer approach to the original sound for whatever end that would
serve I might prefer a "better" system that was not so enjoyable. I wish I
did not have to consider compromise, but I do and if I have to err let it be
on the side of enjoyment. For example, we all know that x dollars spent on
a system that would satisfy a listener of chamber music would purchase a
system that a rock and roll kid would incinerate in a matter of minutes.
And that the system that would satisfy the kid would not please the chamber
musiocc listener. So almost any system most of us can afford is a
compromise. The problem is figuring out how to go about making the best
compromise.

Wylie Williams

[Dennis Moore]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message > But if
there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
> am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
> substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
> as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
> Wylie Williams
>

Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.
Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
to keep listening to long term. Which method of selection comes
closest to matching the long term use of the product?

Dennis

[Nousaine]

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

>Nousaine" > wrote in message
>news:O6C2b.199030$It4.95614@rwcrns
>> Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?
>It's
>> not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.
>>
>"
> "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
>involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
>validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
>the results.

I thought you said you'd been in the business for 22 years? Does this mean
you've never had the 'wrong box' or 'wrong switch position' and still "heard"
the claimed improvements? You certainly must have.

> But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
>am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
>substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
>as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
>Wylie Williams

Think about it. What do you need to restrict decisons to sound alone? First you
need to match levels at the speaker terminals. Test cd and Voltmeter.

Next you need a 2nd party; how about your wife? If you will review (or read "To
Tweak or Not to Tweak" in Sound & Vision you'll get a good idea of a reasonable
protocol. E-mail me if you want a copy.

You'll need a coin to flip; a way to indpendently record your answers and
shield them from change, a blanket (s) or cloth to cover the devices ot
terminals and a person to change devices when you're out of the room.

Alternatively QSC sells a good ABX comparitor for $600.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@sccrnsc03...
> "Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
> news:o0X2b.273368$uu5.62103@sccrnsc04
>
> > "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >
>
> > > But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
> >> am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
> >> substituted and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with
> >> my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled
> >> listening. Wylie Williams
>
> > Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
> > or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.
>
> > Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
> > them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
> > to keep listening to long term.
>
> ..and then never using any of these amps again but the one selected.
>
> Of course, there is nothing that keeps one from "hooking them up for a few
> days" under DBT conditions.
>
> > Which method of selection comes
> > closest to matching the long term use of the product?
>
> Since there need not be any difference in the timetable or listening
> circumstances for the evaluations, they are equally close to matching the
> long term use of the product.
>
> However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been
> thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very
> insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
differences.
>

How about in perceiving less direct but more important "gestalt" difference?
EG, depth of soundstage, focus of instruments, accuracy of timbre over a
range from ppp to fff, etc. These are the kinds of things audiophiles can
hear in a relaxed, monadic state that they have trouble believing are
imagainary when they are put into the typical blind a-b or especially a-b-x
test which uses much more of a left -brain approach and based on your own
comments here seem mostly sensitive to frequency response and loudness.

[Nousaine]

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

>"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message > But if
>there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
>> am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
>> substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
>> as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
>> Wylie Williams
>>
>
>Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
>or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.
>Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
>them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
>to keep listening to long term. Which method of selection comes
>closest to matching the long term use of the product?
>
>Dennis

But wouldn't it be nice to know if your 'feelings' may have a real sonic
underpinning?

[ludovic mirabel]

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04>...
> In article <OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01>,
> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
> > unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
> > as anything else in life.
>
> Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to
> prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think
> you can since it hasn't happened.

S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees:
"Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that
skeptics ask
subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. "

I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking
time-wasting questions. Plenty more to find where this one comes from
but I can think of better uses for my time than rereading old files
to answer anyone's imaginings.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ludovic mirabel]

Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel > wrote:
>
Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence
of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes"
L. Mirabel:
> > Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.
>
S. Sullivan:
> Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
> J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
> generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
> in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.

I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his
well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic
coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of
mixers, processors and equalisers.
My high-fidelity faith is not to what a record company chooses
to put in my hands. It is to the original sound of unamplified
instruments. And if I have to use my own processing to try to rescue
the violin, the cello and the clarinet from the "euphonic colouration"
garbage in which some record companies (Philips the least, D.G. most)
choose to drown it so be it.
It is my taste against theirs. Subjectivity rules.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Audio Guy]

In article <bud3b.277568$YN5.190095@sccrnsc01>,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04>...
>> In article <OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01>,
>> (ludovic mirabel) writes:
>> > But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
>> > unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
>> > as anything else in life.
>>
>> Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to
>> prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think
>> you can since it hasn't happened.
>
> S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees:
> "Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that
> skeptics ask
> subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. "
>
> I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking
> time-wasting questions. Plenty more to find where this one comes from
> but I can think of better uses for my time than rereading old files
> to answer anyone's imaginings.

It seems you equate "ask" with "challenge". I'm sure I don't and I
doubt that was Mr. Sullivan's intention.

Please quote where some was "challenged" to "prove" their "opinions",
or quit bringing up that strawman.

[Steven Sullivan]

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > wrote in message >...
> > ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> >
> Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence
> of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes"
> L. Mirabel:
> > > Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too.
> >
> S. Sullivan:
> > Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from
> > J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry
> > generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy*
> > in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*.

> I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his
> well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic
> coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of
> mixers, processors and equalisers.

My recollection is that it was a blast at the reviewers who
reviewed *equipment*. But someone who actually has the issue
at hand can perhaps clarify.



--
-S.

[All Ears]

Wylie,

I often use a good set of head phones as reference, when evaluating
components. It seems clearly to point out if there are problems with the set
up or acoustics. It is not an universal solution, but to me it seems to
work.

KE

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
> > However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been
> > thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very
> > insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
> differences.
> >
> I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably
> perceive them. I want to discover if there are any obvious differences,
> and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased it to me, "specify
my
> colorations". And I may have an Audio Authority amplifier switcher in my
> treasure trove of unsold store leftovers in the chaos of my basement
> storage. Fresh question - Does a switcher in the signal path degrade the
> sound? I always assumed that a switcher would not be as good as hard
> wired, but I can't quite figure how anyone would test escept by subjective
> listening..
>
> Wylie Williams
>

[Steven Sullivan]

ludovic mirabel > wrote:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:<51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04>...
> > In article <OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01>,
> > (ludovic mirabel) writes:
> > > But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
> > > unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
> > > as anything else in life.
> >
> > Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to
> > prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think
> > you can since it hasn't happened.

> S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees:
> "Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that
> skeptics ask
> subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. "

Indeed: I wrote the word *claims*, rather than *opinions*,
for a reason.

> I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking
> time-wasting questions.

And in your case, posting time-wasting 'answers'.

--
-S.

[Bob Marcus]

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<nsd3b.276882$o%2.127236@sccrnsc02>...
> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> > "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "Wylie Williams" wrote:
> > >
> See previous discussion below:
> > >
> > > Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods?
> It's
> > > not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant.
> > >
> > "
> > "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very
> > involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the
> > validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of
> > the results.
> > But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I
> > am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just
> > substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife
> > as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening.
> > Wylie Williams
>
> At a risk of stirring up a hornets' nest here is a protocol I
> use because I find that the task of remembering A, then remembering B,
> and finally comparing X with my memories of A and B results in
> complete confusion and random guessing,
> I want a synchronous, simultaneous comparison with no
> memorisation required.
> This is me and I guess some others too. I will not repeat the
> evidence from the past records that there could be many others like
> myself accounting for the uniformly negative results of the recorded
> and published ABX component tests audiophile panels.
> I want to emphasize that I have nothing against anyone using
> the ABX approach if they feel comfortable with it, have the required
> ABX switch, a voltmeter for exact levelling etc.
>
> My approach centers frankly on preference. Insisting on
> "difference and difference only" may be a prerequisite in research. An
> audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice.
> Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and
> right side are desirable. Very exact levelling is not necessary.
> Other common sense precautions are: compare like with like:
> testing a 400watt amp against a 5watt SET is waste of time.
> You can not compare signal source against signal source this
> way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against a turntable.
> You cannot compare speakers because that requires special
> facilities for moving them fast to an exact position . Same of course
> applies to ABX testing.
> You can compare interconnects, power cables and power
> controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs.
> An obliging partner is a necessity.
>
> 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
> source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
> 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
> the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
> preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)
> 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
> 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
> from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
> keeping the records.
> 5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with
> interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your
> preference
> The repetition and change are the CRUX.
>
> At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room sides differ,
> levels differ subtly etc.
> Answer;If there are differences between room sides, speaker volumes
> etc. and yet you still prefer and locate one of the two component as
> it moves from side to side surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes?
> no?
> Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still
> have a statistically significant positive results: "I prefer the sound
> of this preamp on EITHER side."
> The other theoretical objections from the people who never tried it
> are of little interest. The inferences from other fields (eg.
> research)
> are even less so. Apples and oranges. Even if they assure you that the
> Goddess of their kind of "science" is fighting on their side.
> The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it is
> SIMULTANEOUS.
> While comparing turn your head from side to side as much as you like.
> If you have no preference give the component back to the shop. If
> there is any difference it is not one that matters to you
> =(Proviso)- at this stage of your musical experience and preference.
> Exactly like is the case with an ABX result
> NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method
> that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me
> and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only
> use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias.
> Those who are comfortable with ABX are of course welcome to it.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing
was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever
for that purpose. Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
appears in a different place!) All one has to do is declare a
"preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always be
able to tell when the switch has been made, it's hardly a challenge to
declare the same "preference" repeatedly. No wonder you've impressed
your friends with this trick.

Now, why don't you try it level-matched, and double-blind, and then
submit an article to JAES (or even S&V!), so we can see what the
results really are?

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote

>> However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
>> been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
>> very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
> differences.

> I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably
> perceive them.

I wouldn't give up that easily.

> I want to discover if there are any obvious
> differences, and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased
> it to me, "specify my colorations".

That's generally pretty easy to do, if the differences in coloration
actually exist in large enough amounts to be heard.

> And I may have an Audio
> Authority amplifier switcher in my treasure trove of unsold store
> leftovers in the chaos of my basement storage. Fresh question - Does
> a switcher in the signal path degrade the sound?

It may or it may not. It's not just the switcher that matters, it's the
whole comparison system, cables, switcher, level matching, equipment
providing the signal, speakers, etc. We spent years developing this
switching hardware http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_hdwr.htm to deal with
these issues.

I can find no online documentation about audio authority
loudspeaker/amplifier switchers, so they are unknown to me.

> I always assumed
> that a switcher would not be as good as hard wired, but I can't quite
> figure how anyone would test except by subjective listening..

Switching well-done can be totally sonically transparent. However, setup and
verification can be challenging. The comparisons aren't valid unless there
is excellent level matching.

I eliminated switchers from audio equipment listening tests by means of the
procedures demonstrated at my PCABX web site.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
news:Wud3b.277945$Ho3.37329@sccrnsc03
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@

>> However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
>> been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
>> very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
>> differences.

> And it precisely this difference that keeps people wondering
> about DBT's.

Why? Is there valid, reliable a-priori evidence that DBTs fail to detect
audible differences?

> Equipment that supposedly sounds identical
> under conditions of DBT's gives different levels of satisfaction
> long term.

Isn't there more to audio equipment than just sound quality?

> And you must admit, while possible to do so, it
> is unusual for DBT's to be done with switching done on a scale
> of days.

Once one finds that something is futile, one is not encouraged to spend a
tremendous amount of time with it.

> So should we be so surprised that a method developed and
> found most telling under short term comparisons gives
> different than expected results when used for long term
> comparison.

There's no reliable evidence that this is the case. Indeed, there is
reliable evidence that this is NOT the case.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@sccrnsc03...
>> "Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
>> news:o0X2b.273368$uu5.62103@sccrnsc04
>>
>>> "Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >
>>
>>>> But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions.
>>>> I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have
>>>> just substituted and listened to each a few days, comparing
>>>> opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias
>>>> controlled listening. Wylie Williams
>>
>>> Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's
>>> or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again.
>>
>>> Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about
>>> them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about
>>> to keep listening to long term.
>>
>> ..and then never using any of these amps again but the one selected.
>>
>> Of course, there is nothing that keeps one from "hooking them up for
>> a few days" under DBT conditions.

>> Which method of selection comes
>>> closest to matching the long term use of the product?

>> Since there need not be any difference in the timetable or listening
>> circumstances for the evaluations, they are equally close to
>> matching the long term use of the product.

>> However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
>> been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
>> very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
>> differences.

> How about in perceiving less direct but more important "gestalt"
> difference? EG, depth of soundstage, focus of instruments, accuracy
> of timbre over a range from ppp to fff, etc.

Long term listening is generally said to involve listening for days or
weeks. In contrast, the entire sequence of 9 Beethoven Symphonies can be
listened to in something like 6 hours ( I just did it for the Toscanini and
Walter versions). Suffice it to say, just about any "gestalt" difference can
be revealed in listening tests that are not "long term" as the phrase is
commonly used.

>These are the kinds of
> things audiophiles can hear in a relaxed, monadic state that they
> have trouble believing are imaginary when they are put into the
> typical blind a-b or especially a-b-x test which uses much more of a
> left -brain approach and based on your own comments here seem mostly
> sensitive to frequency response and loudness.

This would appear to be a collection of assertions that lack proximal
factual support.

Again, there's nothing about DBT listening that prohibits any kind of
long-term listening strategy that one might come up with. Many of these
things have been tried and found to provide no joy. OTOH. presentation of
the sonic alternatives in quick succession is a well-known and
generally-recognized means to optimize listener sensitivity.

[Dennis Moore]

> I believe Dennis is talking about "long term musical satisfaction' which
is
> different from pride of ownership.
>
> >> And you must admit, while possible to do so, it
> >> is unusual for DBT's to be done with switching done on a scale
> >> of days.
> >
> snip
> >>
> >> So should we be so surprised that a method developed and
> >> found most telling under short term comparisons gives
> >> different than expected results when used for long term
> >> comparison.
> >
> >DBT's are for detecting subtle audio differences. Long term satisfaction
> >is often not dependent on subtle differences.
> >
>
> While I don't want to start another DBT debate here, I strongly disagree
with
> you. You may consider DBTs useful for detecting 'subtle audible
differences'
> but that is exactly what they DON'T reveal. DBTs have been shown to
reveal
> gross differences in frequency response and loudness, but little else -
> especially with music as a source and with averaged responses of untrained
> listeners (normal audiophiles).
>
> IMHO long term listening satisfaction is based on a variety of subtle
audible
> differences, such as dynamic shadings, soundstage reproduction, imaging,
tonal
> shadings and timbral accuracy.
> Regards,
> Mike
>


Yes, Mike got it. I was indeed speaking of long term musical
satisfaction. You of course don't know me, but snobbish or even
genuine pride of ownership isn't why I own something. If I think
it does the music better, and I can afford it then I use it. I have
made some useful, but terrible looking things that stayed in
my system along time. I have had some beautiful equipment,
but the beauty to me was the way it allowed me to enjoy music.
I have at times had barely practical arrangements of equipment
which allowed me musical enjoyment.

Dennis

[ludovic mirabel]

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<nsd3b.276882$o%2.127236@sccrnsc02>...
> >
See initial discussion below:
Mr. Marcus responds:
> If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing
> was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever
> for that purpose. Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
> be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
> appears in a different place!) All one has to do is declare a
> "preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always be
> able to tell when the switch has been made, it's hardly a challenge to
> declare the same "preference" repeatedly. No wonder you've impressed
> your friends with this trick.
>
> Now, why don't you try it level-matched, and double-blind, and then
> submit an article to JAES (or even S&V!), so we can see what the
> results really are?
>
> bob

Mr. Marcus you give me too much credit. Con artist I may be but
I'm not a magician- the two SIDES are NOT switched- only the
components are.
The room stays where it was. Any differences between its two SIDES
stay where they were, the speakers, the cd.player or the turntable
stay where they were.
The only things switched are the two components-two links
between the sound source and the speakers. They are moved from one
SIDE to the other SIDE And these components should be as level-
comparable as the components were in all the published ABX component
comparison tests- all of them with negative outcomes.
The levels must be close to begin with because TO BEGIN WITH
YOU ADJUST THE LEFT AND RIGHT VOLUMES ON YOUR PREAMP TILL THE MONO
IMAGE IS DEAD CENTRE. If you had much experience with voltmeter you'd
know that very little decibel difference namely 0,5 db. moves the
image right or left. Nothing against using a voltmeter- I got no
revelations when I did.
One needs a particular kind of imagination and /or limited
experience to believe that such kindergarten precautions don't occur
to others.
The monophonic image stays solid with component changes. At
least it does in my room- which does not rotate short of three glasses
of Cognac. How about yours? Does the earth move when you ABX at home?
Mercy- I nearly forgot. Greenhill in his ABX panel cable
testing had TWO out of SIX positive results but ONLY when he was
comparing a thick and a thin cable with 1,75 db. level difference
between them- and ONLY when using pink noise for his signal- not
music.
These two results are immortalised as "Marcus-Ovchain positive
1,75db. test" because you claimed it as your one and only evidence
that ABX can give positive results when comparing components and
Ovchain was applauding on the sidelines. That explains why you think
that 1,75 db at say 4000hz would be missed by anyone not terminally
deaf. For your information- these old ears detect a 0,5 db change in
volume when switching my stepped volume controls.
I promise to reflect on your con artistry connoisseurship in
my spare time.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I'll contact JAES after you quote one single ABX
component comparison report that appeared there.
While waiting I described the left-right method in an article
in a Guest Editorial in the "Audio Electronics" #5, '98, p6.
I'll mail the Editor your posting . He'll be saddened to hear
how foolish he was to fall for my con act, and no doubt invite you to
contribute as a scientist-vigilante on psychometrics, acoustics,
electronics etc.

[Nousaine]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



>
>"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message
>news:Wud3b.277945$Ho3.37329@sccrnsc03
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@
>
>>> However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has
>>> been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be
>>> very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible
>>> differences.
>
>> And it precisely this difference that keeps people wondering
>> about DBT's.
>
>Why? Is there valid, reliable a-priori evidence that DBTs fail to detect
>audible differences?
>
>> Equipment that supposedly sounds identical
>> under conditions of DBT's gives different levels of satisfaction
>> long term.
>
>Isn't there more to audio equipment than just sound quality?
>
>> And you must admit, while possible to do so, it
>> is unusual for DBT's to be done with switching done on a scale
>> of days.
>
>Once one finds that something is futile, one is not encouraged to spend a
>tremendous amount of time with it.
>
>> So should we be so surprised that a method developed and
>> found most telling under short term comparisons gives
>> different than expected results when used for long term
>> comparison.
>
>There's no reliable evidence that this is the case. Indeed, there is
>reliable evidence that this is NOT the case.

Indeed, Mr Moore's assertion has no evidentiary content. It's just his opinion
that this happens. It also may be partly a subtle corollary extension of the
break-in merchandising mythology.

[Bob Marcus]

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<xDA3b.220180$cF.73109@rwcrnsc53>...
> (Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<nsd3b.276882$o%2.127236@sccrnsc02>...
> > >
> See initial discussion below:
> Mr. Marcus responds:
> > If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing
> > was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever
> > for that purpose. Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
> > be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
> > appears in a different place!) All one has to do is declare a
> > "preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always be
> > able to tell when the switch has been made, it's hardly a challenge to
> > declare the same "preference" repeatedly. No wonder you've impressed
> > your friends with this trick.
> >
> > Now, why don't you try it level-matched, and double-blind, and then
> > submit an article to JAES (or even S&V!), so we can see what the
> > results really are?
> >
> > bob
>
> Mr. Marcus you give me too much credit. Con artist I may be

Actually, I don't think you're conning anyone.

> but
> I'm not a magician- the two SIDES are NOT switched- only the
> components are.
> The room stays where it was. Any differences between its two SIDES
> stay where they were, the speakers, the cd.player or the turntable
> stay where they were.
> The only things switched are the two components-two links
> between the sound source and the speakers. They are moved from one
> SIDE to the other SIDE And these components should be as level-
> comparable as the components were in all the published ABX component
> comparison tests- all of them with negative outcomes.

Ah, so you do level-match them. I thought you said that wasn't
necessary.

> The levels must be close to begin with because TO BEGIN WITH
> YOU ADJUST THE LEFT AND RIGHT VOLUMES ON YOUR PREAMP TILL THE MONO
> IMAGE IS DEAD CENTRE. If you had much experience with voltmeter you'd
> know that very little decibel difference namely 0,5 db. moves the
> image right or left. Nothing against using a voltmeter- I got no
> revelations when I did.

But you used one, right? Because you absolutely have to, you know. Or
rather, your lovely assistant has to, because if YOU adjusted levels
after SHE switched the components, it wouldn't even be single-blind,
now would it?

> One needs a particular kind of imagination and /or limited
> experience to believe that such kindergarten precautions don't occur
> to others.

If all you're using are kindergarten precautions, I'm afraid we have a
bias control problem.

> The monophonic image stays solid with component changes. At
> least it does in my room- which does not rotate short of three glasses
> of Cognac. How about yours? Does the earth move when you ABX at home?

Do it double-blind with an impartial witness, and show us the data.

> Mercy- I nearly forgot. Greenhill in his ABX panel cable
> testing had TWO out of SIX positive results but ONLY when he was
> comparing a thick and a thin cable with 1,75 db. level difference
> between them- and ONLY when using pink noise for his signal- not
> music.
> These two results are immortalised as "Marcus-Ovchain positive
> 1,75db. test" because you claimed it as your one and only evidence
> that ABX can give positive results when comparing components and
> Ovchain was applauding on the sidelines. That explains why you think
> that 1,75 db at say 4000hz would be missed by anyone not terminally
> deaf. For your information- these old ears detect a 0,5 db change in
> volume when switching my stepped volume controls.

I am quite through trying to argue with you about Greenhill's tests.
Everything you have written about them has been wrong (save, perhaps,
the date of publication), and although you have been corrected many
times by many people here, you persist in your misreporting. I can
only assume that is willful.

I once again invite anyone who actually cares to look up the original
article and find out what Greenhill really said.

bob

[chung]

Bob Marcus wrote:
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
>>
>> Mr. Marcus said:
>> > > > If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing
>> > > > was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever
>> > > > for that purpose.
>>
>> Mr. Williams asked for a method less complicated than ABX. Very
>> hesitantly, knowing the ways of some in the RAHE I summarised a
>> method that was accepted and published by the "Audio Amateur". Only to
>> be told by an expert called Marcus that it was a "con artist method,
>> devised to just "prove" my acute hearing.
>
> I said it COULD be used that way. I also said I didn't think you were
> conning anyone.
>
> <snip>
>
> > A simple task in my case : I have volume controls stepped in 0,5
> db.
>> steps.
>
> And you think 0.5 dB is close enough???
>
> <snip some more>
>
>> Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still
>> have a statistically significant positive results:
>
> Wait--do you have any significant positive results? You haven't posted
> any.
>
> <snip yet again>
>
> There are more things wrong with your left-right method than I can
> count. Basically, you're asking your brain to sort out sounds in a way
> it isn't wired to. So, in theory at least, it should not work. I will
> be perfectly willing to concede that it does work, however, if you
> will do the following:
>
> 1) Level-match to within 0.1 dB (the usual standard, I believe).
>
> 2) Perform the tests double-blind, with an independent witness.
>
> 3) Report the results in full.
>
> Until you do that, all you're offering is a theoretical approach
> that's contradicted by all existing theory. And given that the
> existing theory has been developed over decades by people far more
> expert in the field than you or me, that doesn't give you much ground
> to stand on.
>
> bob
>

Actually I don't think anyone is interested in doing a test to find
differences/preferences this way. Example: an important parameter of an
audio component is its ability to convey image. This test uses mono
signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test. I
thought one of the biggest complaints of the original poster was that
the DBT test is different than how people listen to their stereos. This
L/R test is so different than the way we listen to audio equipment that
I am totally surprised that he would even consider it. Not to mention
the fact that any dynamic interchannel effects (like crosstalk, power
supply effects, imbalance of frequency response in a RIAA circuit, etc.)
will be totally undetected. The more I think about the test, the more I
am amazed at what it does not do.

[Dennis Moore]

"Bob Marcus" > wrote in message
> > A simple task in my case : I have volume controls stepped in 0,5
> db.
> > steps.
>
> And you think 0.5 dB is close enough???
>
> <snip some more>
>

Well if there is a .5dB difference he could go up or down to match
exactly. With .5 dB steps, the maximum difference between two
sources will be .25 dB. And often would be less. At one time the
standard was within .2dB which eventually was reduced to .1 dB.
At least some of the time you could be testing components that
were this close. Would be a good move to measure it and see
that it is. But the .5 dB steps don't automatically make the
level differences too large.

Dennis

[ludovic mirabel]

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<xJo5b.342306$YN5.233613@sccrnsc01>...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> >
> > Mr. Marcus said:
>
Snip:
> There are more things wrong with your left-right method than I can
> count. Basically, you're asking your brain to sort out sounds in a way
> it isn't wired to. So, in theory at least, it should not work.

Exactly which theory about "how the brain is wired" is against turning
your head from left to right to compare sounds. I missed it in the
neurophysiology reports I read. A few references and quotes, please.
Just to enlighten me.

> I will be perfectly willing to concede that it does work, however, if you
> will do the following:
> 1) Level-match to within 0.1 dB (the usual standard, I believe).
> 2) Perform the tests double-blind, with an independent witness.
> 3) Report the results in full.
>
Your " willing to concede" is a real incentive. It will open the
gates, no doubt, to respectability amongst electronics' engs,
psychometricians, my professional cousins neurologists and neuro
physiologists, all the folk who are awaiting your word.

> Until you do that, all you're offering is a theoretical approach
> that's contradicted by all existing theory. And given that the
> existing theory has been developed over decades by people far more
> expert in the field than you or me, that doesn't give you much ground
> to stand on.
>
> bob

Help "us' out with a few points:
1) I said several times that I'm proposing an ad hoc, imperfect,
nonscientific, non researched way to avoid bias It only just an
elaboration of covering the brand names. It is meant to be used by
whoever feels that he'd like to attempt some degree of bias control,
very simply, at his home, without using $600:00 switch, and without a
DBT method which requires training and, at that, is still
controversial (ah, theory!) after 30 years of use in this application.
It is not even for everyone. Some, I'm sure will not like it- and
that's the end of the matter- as lonng as they have facts not theories
to report.

I said also that speculative theoretical objections from those
without hands-on experience are of little interest to me.
But since you insist on taking me there it would help if you quoted a
few names and references to YOUR research experts in "existing
theory" WITH DIRECT RELEVANCE TO SIMULTANEOUS COMPONENT COMPARISONS
WITH RANDOM CHANGES FROM SIDE TO SIDE. So far we have your
interpretative report only of what those anonymous experts are
supposed to have said but no doubt you have "many" references at your
fingertips.

2) Your strict conditions for "conceding" would make sense if,
blazing the path to a better alternative, YOU had done all these
things- to avoid bias- in YOUR component choices. You must have tested
them before purchase with 0,1 db level matching, double blind
precautions and independent witnesses- don't forget witnesses. Do you
own the ABX switch?
It would be interesting to hear what was the otcome of those trials
and what system did you collect using these rigid research methods.

3) I missed any further discussion of your theory of the moving
centre image as one moves components from side to side. Remember?

Surely it wouldn't be that you'd like to divert attention from that
"misreporting" (or was it "misunderstanding"?) to a "theoretical"
argument about irrelevancies? (see footnote). I wish I could
concentrate your mind on this crucial topic: Does the central image
move as you move the components from side to side or does it stay
steady? 0,1 db level difference or 0,2 or or 0.5 or 1,75- whatever .
Ludovic Mirabel

Footnote Marcus explained:
> > > Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
> > > be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
> > > appears in a different place!)

No it does not, It stays rock-solid throughout (see below)

> > > All one has to do is declare a
> > > "preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always
> > > be able to tell when the switch has been made, ..

Yes, you will or not but not because "the image appears in a different
place". It does not.
The component are Xmoved from side to side but the levels between the
two sides do not change. Elementary: you do not use components with
different output levels in ABX , you do not use them in left-right.
Unless you're deliberately testing for the threshhold of level-
perception and use eg. two wires of different diameter
If you do, you get the Marcus-Ovchain 1,75db "positive" ABX test.
Automatically.

As explained to you, twice, very exact level matching is completely
unnecessary in the left-right simultaneous comparison. If the
better-liked component is moved to the less favoured side of the room
and yet is still identified , it REINFORCES the validity of the
result.
Surely it is not THAT difficult to grasp.
But of course there is nothing against exact level matching should you
so wish.
If you HAVEN'T graspED it YET I despair of explaining it to you.
Knowing your scrupulous probity in an argument I'd never suspect that
your 0,1db, reliable witnesses and the rest is just a lot of
squid-ink.
L.M.

[ludovic mirabel]

chung > wrote in message >...
> Bob Marcus wrote:
> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
Snip previous discussion.

Chung said:
> Actually I don't think anyone is interested in doing a test to find
> differences/preferences this way. Example: an important parameter of an
> audio component is its ability to convey image. This test uses mono
> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test. I
> thought one of the biggest complaints of the original poster was that
> the DBT test is different than how people listen to their stereos. This
> L/R test is so different than the way we listen to audio equipment that
> I am totally surprised that he would even consider it. Not to mention
> the fact that any dynamic interchannel effects (like crosstalk, power
> supply effects, imbalance of frequency response in a RIAA circuit, etc.)
> will be totally undetected. The more I think about the test, the more I
> am amazed at what it does not do.

I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?
I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.
Of course BOTH channels are playing at the same time.
The channel levels are matched before the first change and never
touched after that.
Your assistant Xchanges the two components (which of course are
electrically comparable) at random from one side to the other.
The subject either does or does not consistently recognise the
locations . Perhaps you missed the long word in capitals
SIMULTANEOUSLY- I'm reposting it for your attention .
I'm reposting also the explanation why slight level difference
REINFORCES the validity of a correct answerif anything. If that too is
not clear please don't hesitate to ask.
You reproach me for repetition but it would appear that I have not yet
repeated myself enough.
Reprint: (regretfully and with apologies)
1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)
3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
keeping the records.
5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with
interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your
preference
The repetition and change are the CRUX.

At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room sides differ,
levels differ subtly etc.
Answer;If there are differences between room sides, speaker volumes
etc. and yet you still prefer and locate one of the two component as
it moves from "good" to thje "bad"side surely, that REINFORCES the
results- yes? no?
Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still
have a statistically significant positive result: "I (...recognise)
and prefer the sound of this preamp on EITHER side."
The comparison is not just (supposedly) "instantaneous"- it is
SIMULTANEOUS.
The theoretical objections from people who never tried it
are of little interest.
Addendum: This is not a research test. No test, not DBT, exists FOR
THIS APPLICATION that is validated by properly conducted research. The
inferences from other fields (eg. medicine, psychometrics etc) are
apple and oranges.
Consider just this for one thing. The crux in medical research is
proper selection of the subjects to get representative outcome
numbers: age, gender, age, race, social backgrounds, dietary and other
habits and so on.
How do you select a representative panel for component comparison
tests. Just untrained audiophiles? You'll get untrained "They all
sound the same answer".
Trained, middle-ahed chamber music lovers? Well you got a huge
selection bias.

The truth that our scientists will not face is that NO PROPERLY
RESEARCHED TEST , WITH THE VARIETY OF THE AUDIOPHILE SPECIES COMPARING
MUSICAL QUALITIES OF COMPONENTS, EXISTS AND THAT NONE IS POSSIBLE IN
THE PRESENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE. (Repetition again).
Ludovic Mirabel

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:28:24 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

>I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
>you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?
>I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
>obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
>attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.

I am completely flabbergasted that you'd be surprised by such an
attribution..... :-)

> Of course BOTH channels are playing at the same time.

That is exactly the problem. You have at best a 6dB signal to noise
ratio between the reference channel and the channel containing the
unit under test. This will pretty well guarantee the masking of any
real but subtle differences.

To claim, as you do, that this works *better* than a time-proximate
'ABX' test, is contrary to everything we know about human hearing -
and that is a *lot* more than the 'subjectivists' care to believe.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Bob Marcus]

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<38U5b.269475$Oz4.71805@rwcrnsc54>...
> (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<xJo5b.342306$YN5.233613@sccrnsc01>...
> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> > >
> > > Mr. Marcus said:
> >
> Snip:
> > There are more things wrong with your left-right method than I can
> > count. Basically, you're asking your brain to sort out sounds in a way
> > it isn't wired to. So, in theory at least, it should not work.
>
> Exactly which theory about "how the brain is wired" is against turning
> your head from left to right to compare sounds. I missed it in the
> neurophysiology reports I read. A few references and quotes, please.
> Just to enlighten me.

I meant only that the brain is wired to synthesize the sound it hears
from the two channels. That's how stereo works, after all. Your method
forces you to work against that.
>
> > I will be perfectly willing to concede that it does work, however, if you
> > will do the following:
> > 1) Level-match to within 0.1 dB (the usual standard, I believe).
> > 2) Perform the tests double-blind, with an independent witness.
> > 3) Report the results in full.
> >
> Your " willing to concede" is a real incentive. It will open the
> gates, no doubt, to respectability amongst electronics' engs,
> psychometricians, my professional cousins neurologists and neuro
> physiologists, all the folk who are awaiting your word.
>
> > Until you do that, all you're offering is a theoretical approach
> > that's contradicted by all existing theory. And given that the
> > existing theory has been developed over decades by people far more
> > expert in the field than you or me, that doesn't give you much ground
> > to stand on.
> >
> > bob
>
> Help "us' out with a few points:
> 1) I said several times that I'm proposing an ad hoc, imperfect,
> nonscientific, non researched way to avoid bias It only just an
> elaboration of covering the brand names. It is meant to be used by
> whoever feels that he'd like to attempt some degree of bias control,
> very simply, at his home, without using $600:00 switch, and without a
> DBT method which requires training

Actually, to be any good, your method would require at least as much
training. After all, you're listening for the exact same artifacts.
(And, as I noted above, you're listening for them under rather more
challenging circumstances.)

>and, at that, is still
> controversial (ah, theory!) after 30 years of use in this application.

Not among the people who use it regularly to design and test audio
components, among other things. It's only "controversial" because some
people are uncomfortable with its results and deal with the resulting
cognitive dissonance by maintaining a willful ignorance about it.

> It is not even for everyone. Some, I'm sure will not like it- and
> that's the end of the matter- as lonng as they have facts not theories
> to report.

But, as I keep pointing out, you have NO facts to report.
>
> I said also that speculative theoretical objections from those
> without hands-on experience are of little interest to me.

That is evident. However, those to whom you are recommending this
method might be interested to know just how well it has been
validated. That is, not at all.

> But since you insist on taking me there it would help if you quoted a
> few names and references to YOUR research experts in "existing
> theory" WITH DIRECT RELEVANCE TO SIMULTANEOUS COMPONENT COMPARISONS
> WITH RANDOM CHANGES FROM SIDE TO SIDE. So far we have your
> interpretative report only of what those anonymous experts are
> supposed to have said but no doubt you have "many" references at your
> fingertips.
>
> 2) Your strict conditions for "conceding" would make sense if,
> blazing the path to a better alternative, YOU had done all these
> things- to avoid bias- in YOUR component choices. You must have tested
> them before purchase with 0,1 db level matching, double blind
> precautions and independent witnesses- don't forget witnesses. Do you
> own the ABX switch?
> It would be interesting to hear what was the otcome of those trials
> and what system did you collect using these rigid research methods.

Ah, but I can point to published results done by people who did. You
can't.
>
> 3) I missed any further discussion of your theory of the moving
> centre image as one moves components from side to side. Remember?
>
> Surely it wouldn't be that you'd like to divert attention from that
> "misreporting" (or was it "misunderstanding"?) to a "theoretical"
> argument about irrelevancies? (see footnote). I wish I could
> concentrate your mind on this crucial topic: Does the central image
> move as you move the components from side to side or does it stay
> steady? 0,1 db level difference or 0,2 or or 0.5 or 1,75- whatever .

Well, let's say you have two amps that aren't precisely level-matched.
When you switch them side-to-side, the louder amp is now on the other
side. Doesn't that shift the image? And doesn't that provide the
supposedly blinded test subject with a rather obvious clue as to
whether the amps have been switched or not? And since that clue is
based entirely on level, rather than on the distinctive sound of the
two amps, doesn't that render the test pretty much meaningless?

> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Footnote Marcus explained:
> > > > Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would
> > > > be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image
> > > > appears in a different place!)
>
> No it does not, It stays rock-solid throughout (see below)
>
> > > > All one has to do is declare a
> > > > "preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always
> > > > be able to tell when the switch has been made, ..
>
> Yes, you will or not but not because "the image appears in a different
> place". It does not.
> The component are Xmoved from side to side but the levels between the
> two sides do not change. Elementary: you do not use components with
> different output levels in ABX , you do not use them in left-right.
> Unless you're deliberately testing for the threshhold of level-
> perception and use eg. two wires of different diameter
> If you do, you get the Marcus-Ovchain 1,75db "positive" ABX test.
> Automatically.
>
> As explained to you, twice, very exact level matching is completely
> unnecessary in the left-right simultaneous comparison. If the
> better-liked component is moved to the less favoured side of the room
> and yet is still identified , it REINFORCES the validity of the
> result.

Not if the image shift tells the listener that the device favored in
the first test is now on the other side. In that case, the two trials
are not independent.

> Surely it is not THAT difficult to grasp.

Tsk, tsk. Another condescending remark slip past the moderators.

bob

p.s.: Just for fun, check out a real expert's take on the problems
with simultaneous left-right comparisons:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3sp74a%24cg8%40eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu

[ludovic mirabel]

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:28:24 GMT, (ludovic
> mirabel) wrote:
>
> >I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
> > signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
> >you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?
> >I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
> >obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
> >attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.
>
> I am completely flabbergasted that you'd be surprised by such an
> attribution..... :-)
>
> > Of course BOTH channels are playing at the same time.
>
> That is exactly the problem. You have at best a 6dB signal to noise
> ratio between the reference channel and the channel containing the
> unit under test. This will pretty well guarantee the masking of any
> real but subtle differences.
>
> To claim, as you do, that this works *better* than a time-proximate
> 'ABX' test, is contrary to everything we know about human hearing -
> and that is a *lot* more than the 'subjectivists' care to believe.

It is now the RAHE time to make lightning and thunder shouting
with dramatised indignation: "Quote one sentence of mine claiming that
it works better or you'll see my seconds this evening" But I won't.
I'm not that anxious to win.
No I never said that it works "better" than whatever. If I let
slip something like that I recant. It works better for me and for some
others. Quite likely not for everyone
You see I don't believe that a universally valid "test" for
comparing audio components exists. I gave my reasons too many times
already but will again if you insist.
Your theory why it shouldn't work is very interesting. 6db is
good enough for me. I don't mind if you believe me or not, I'm not
trademarking anything.
I said before that my platoon seargent (in Scotland BTW) used
to say "Practical life f.... theory"
Try my nontest and then report back. 6db. and all.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ludovic mirabel]

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message >...
> (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<38U5b.269475$Oz4.71805@rwcrnsc54>...
> > (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<xJo5b.342306$YN5.233613@sccrnsc01>...
> > > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> > > >
> > >
> Big snip. I said:
> > Surely it is not THAT difficult to grasp.
>
> Tsk, tsk. Another condescending remark slip past the moderators.
>
> bob
>
> p.s.: Just for fun, check out a real expert's take on the problems
> with simultaneous left-right comparisons:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3sp74a%24cg8%40eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu

I'll get to the snipped portion of this posting, with Mr. Marcus
latest revision of his "brain- wiring" theory, sometime later- after
a lunch and a snooze.
But here for the 2nd. time in 24 hrs Mr. Marcus sees fit to start
special pleading for censorship- first in regard to Mr. Lang's text in
the "Audiophile Press" thread, and now in regard to mine.
And once againhe does it in the main forum not in the "discuss"
subforum created specifically for discussion of moderating problems.
And these his remarks "slip past the moderators" as he puts it,
confirming my opinion in the "Audiophile Press" thread that the new
guidelines are not only emasculating but also very, very difficult to
administer fairly.
And his delicate sense of propriety (he doesn't like
"condescension") does not extend to insinuation like
"REAL expert's take" against mine obviously very "UNREAL"
expertise ( the honour by the way I never claimed).
So I had a look at Sean Olive's text.
It seems that someone posted a letter in the "Stereophile" proposing
comparing components placed one on the left the other one on the right
side. Period. No RANDOM CHANGES from side to side which are the CRUX
of the left-right method. (I repeated it so many times that by now it
nearly sends me to sleep).
S. Olive as befits a real scientist spends many lines proving that
a stupid method is indeed a stupid method.
But where is our Mr. Marcus in all this? Why does he grab onto
this 100% irrelevancy, pins it on me, clouds the issue and sends
readers on a 100% irrelevant wild goose chase? It wouldn't be because
he's hard-pressed for a rational argument, would it?
Well, we've been there before. He did the same in regard to his
let's call it... "misreporting" of Greenhill's article. There too he
made , let's say... "mistaken" claims that suited his case and when
faced with Greenhill's own tables and conclusions sent the readers "to
see for themselves".
When I quoted ALL the relevant portions of Greenhill's
conclusions verbatim and challenged him to give one single quote
contradicting it, he seeming somewhat upset and irritable, said that
he'll no longer discuss Greenhill in RAHE.
What now Mr. Marcus? Will you still discuss S. Olive's
opinions or refuse to, forcing me to quote all of it here?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Nousaine]

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

>
>"Bob Marcus" > wrote in message
>> > A simple task in my case : I have volume controls stepped in 0,5
>> db.
>> > steps.
>>
>> And you think 0.5 dB is close enough???
>>
>> <snip some more>
>>
>
>Well if there is a .5dB difference he could go up or down to match
>exactly. With .5 dB steps, the maximum difference between two
>sources will be .25 dB. And often would be less. At one time the
>standard was within .2dB which eventually was reduced to .1 dB.

Just to be clear the standard has always been +/- 0.1 which is 0.2 dB when not
expressed as a range.

[chung]

ludovic mirabel wrote:
> chung > wrote in message >...
>> Bob Marcus wrote:
>> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> Snip previous discussion.
>
> Chung said:
>> Actually I don't think anyone is interested in doing a test to find
>> differences/preferences this way. Example: an important parameter of an
>> audio component is its ability to convey image. This test uses mono
>> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test. I
>> thought one of the biggest complaints of the original poster was that
>> the DBT test is different than how people listen to their stereos. This
>> L/R test is so different than the way we listen to audio equipment that
>> I am totally surprised that he would even consider it. Not to mention
>> the fact that any dynamic interchannel effects (like crosstalk, power
>> supply effects, imbalance of frequency response in a RIAA circuit, etc.)
>> will be totally undetected. The more I think about the test, the more I
>> am amazed at what it does not do.
>
> I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
> you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?

No. You were saying that you compared *one* channel of one product vs.
*one* channel of another product. You were listening to both L and R
channels, but those channels were processed by different pieces of
equipment (for example, L channel came from one channel of amp A, and
right channel came from one channel of amp B). And you said you were
using mono material.

> I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
> obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
> attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.

You said it, not me :).

Please answer this: how do you compare the stereo image ability of one
product vs another using your method?

> Of course BOTH channels are playing at the same time.
> The channel levels are matched before the first change and never
> touched after that.
> Your assistant Xchanges the two components (which of course are
> electrically comparable) at random from one side to the other.
> The subject either does or does not consistently recognise the
> locations . Perhaps you missed the long word in capitals
> SIMULTANEOUSLY- I'm reposting it for your attention .
> I'm reposting also the explanation why slight level difference
> REINFORCES the validity of a correct answerif anything. If that too is
> not clear please don't hesitate to ask.
> You reproach me for repetition but it would appear that I have not yet
> repeated myself enough.
> Reprint: (regretfully and with apologies)
> 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
> source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
> 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
> the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
> preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)
> 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
> 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
> from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
> keeping the records.
> 5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with
> interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your
> preference
> The repetition and change are the CRUX.

So far, it seems like I understand your method. You are trying to find a
preference of one product over another, by comparing one channel of one
product vs one channel of the other product. As I said before, this is
very different than the way you listen to music, which is using both
channels of the same product(s) at the same time.

The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
material.


>
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

[ludovic mirabel]

chung > wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > chung > wrote in message >...
> >> Bob Marcus wrote:
> >> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> > Snip previous discussion.
> >
> > Chung said:
> >> Actually I don't think anyone is interested in doing a test to find
> >> differences/preferences this way. Example: an important parameter of an
> >> audio component is its ability to convey image. This test uses mono
> >> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test. I
> >> thought one of the biggest complaints of the original poster was that
> >> the DBT test is different than how people listen to their stereos. This
> >> L/R test is so different than the way we listen to audio equipment that
> >> I am totally surprised that he would even consider it. Not to mention
> >> the fact that any dynamic interchannel effects (like crosstalk, power
> >> supply effects, imbalance of frequency response in a RIAA circuit, etc.)
> >> will be totally undetected. The more I think about the test, the more I
> >> am amazed at what it does not do.
> >
> > I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
> > signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
> > you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?
>
> No. You were saying that you compared *one* channel of one product vs.
> *one* channel of another product. You were listening to both L and R
> channels, but those channels were processed by different pieces of
> equipment (for example, L channel came from one channel of amp A, and
> right channel came from one channel of amp B). And you said you were
> using mono material.
>
> > I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
> > obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
> > attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.
>
> You said it, not me :).
>
A great quip. How do you think of such funny things to say just
like that on the spur of the moment.? I said it, not you :)

> Please answer this: how do you compare the stereo image ability of one
> product vs another using your method?
>
I don't. It is not perfect. Just a compromise for easy use at home.
Shall I say what else is not perfect in other tests for comparing
components?
> > Of course BOTH channels are playing at the same time.
> > The channel levels are matched before the first change and never
> > touched after that.
> > Your assistant Xchanges the two components (which of course are
> > electrically comparable) at random from one side to the other.
> > The subject either does or does not consistently recognise the
> > locations . Perhaps you missed the long word in capitals
> > SIMULTANEOUSLY- I'm reposting it for your attention .
> > I'm reposting also the explanation why slight level difference
> > REINFORCES the validity of a correct answerif anything. If that too is
> > not clear please don't hesitate to ask.
> > You reproach me for repetition but it would appear that I have not yet
> > repeated myself enough.
> > Reprint: (regretfully and with apologies)
> > 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
> > source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
> > 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
> > the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
> > preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)
> > 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
> > 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
> > from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
> > keeping the records.
> > 5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with
> > interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your
> > preference
> > The repetition and change are the CRUX.
>
> So far, it seems like I understand your method. You are trying to find a
> preference of one product over another, by comparing one channel of one
> product vs one channel of the other product. As I said before, this is
> very different than the way you listen to music, which is using both
> channels of the same product(s) at the same time.
>
It is. It is not perfect. It does not pretend to be scientific.
Shall I say what other test method is not like listening to music?
Especially if you're using pink noise that some of your colleagues
(perhaps not you, in which case I apologise) claim is the best testing
signal for that other well-publicised "test".
> The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
> material.
>
On the whole if this is all you can criticise a reader might take it
as a recommendation.
By the way- did you try it?
> >
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >

[chung]

ludovic mirabel wrote:
> chung > wrote in message >...
>> ludovic mirabel wrote:
>> > chung > wrote in message >...
>> >> Bob Marcus wrote:
>> >> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
>> > Snip previous discussion.
>> >
>> > Chung said:
>> >> Actually I don't think anyone is interested in doing a test to find
>> >> differences/preferences this way. Example: an important parameter of an
>> >> audio component is its ability to convey image. This test uses mono
>> >> signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test. I
>> >> thought one of the biggest complaints of the original poster was that
>> >> the DBT test is different than how people listen to their stereos. This
>> >> L/R test is so different than the way we listen to audio equipment that
>> >> I am totally surprised that he would even consider it. Not to mention
>> >> the fact that any dynamic interchannel effects (like crosstalk, power
>> >> supply effects, imbalance of frequency response in a RIAA circuit, etc.)
>> >> will be totally undetected. The more I think about the test, the more I
>> >> am amazed at what it does not do.
>> >
>> > I am completely flabbergasted. When you say: "This test uses mono
>> > signals and only exercises one channel of the device under test" do
>> > you mean that you concluded that I'm using ONE channel at a time?
>>
>> No. You were saying that you compared *one* channel of one product vs.
>> *one* channel of another product. You were listening to both L and R
>> channels, but those channels were processed by different pieces of
>> equipment (for example, L channel came from one channel of amp A, and
>> right channel came from one channel of amp B). And you said you were
>> using mono material.
>>
>> > I'm upset because it proves that I'm unable to communicate very
>> > obvious and simple ideas to some readers. And it saddens me that you'd
>> > attribute such brain-lame ideas to me.
>>
>> You said it, not me :).
>>
> A great quip. How do you think of such funny things to say just
> like that on the spur of the moment.? I said it, not you :)

It's funny because if I had made that comment, it would not have passed
moderation.

>
>> Please answer this: how do you compare the stereo image ability of one
>> product vs another using your method?
>>
> I don't. It is not perfect. Just a compromise for easy use at home.
> Shall I say what else is not perfect in other tests for comparing
> components?

Not perfect? How about close to useless? If you read audio reviews,
stereo imaging is one of the biggest measures of how well a piece of
gear is perceived. When you read about differences between amps, wires,
CD players, etc., inevitably the ability to produce pin-point imaging is
a necessary property of a desirable audio product, and it's what
differentiates products. How can you set up a preference without
observing how well the imaging is?

You have other major problems, too. If you only test one channel of a
product, you are essentially ignoring all the (a) interchannel effects
like crosstalk, matching, etc., as well as (b) not exercising a product
under actual-use conditions like driving *both* channels. What if the
power supply cannot handle driving two channels to the loudness you
want? Does anyone really listen to equipment the way you do your test?

>> > (snip)
>> > The repetition and change are the CRUX.

No, the imperfections that you tried to glance over are the crux of why
yours is a poor method.

>>
>> So far, it seems like I understand your method. You are trying to find a
>> preference of one product over another, by comparing one channel of one
>> product vs one channel of the other product. As I said before, this is
>> very different than the way you listen to music, which is using both
>> channels of the same product(s) at the same time.
>>
> It is. It is not perfect. It does not pretend to be scientific.

That part is definitely clear. Another big problem is that the test is
very poorly controlled. As others have pointed out, the left and right
speakers do not sound the same even if they are the same model, due to
placement and room acoustics. When you tried to equalize level, using a
mono or "mostly mono" source, you are balancing left and right at a
small subset of audible frequencies (and 0.5 dB steps are not fine
enough BTW, and have you confirmed that they are actually 0.5dB steps?).
Those speakers will not be giving identical response over the complete
audio range. Therefore, in your listening test, if you use "mostly mono"
or stereo material, there will be imaging cues. For instance, if you use
mostly mono source the 1st violin may sound a little bit left of center
in one setting, but if left and right were swapped, it will sound a
little bit right of center. That tells you L-R has been swapped. That
makes the test poorly controlled since the subject knows something has
changed.

> Shall I say what other test method is not like listening to music?

With DBT, you can listen to music the way you normally audition
equipment at a store, i.e., listen for differences in normal
reproduction. Plus, DBT exercises the equipment the way they are meant
to be used. Huge improvements over yours.

> Especially if you're using pink noise that some of your colleagues
> (perhaps not you, in which case I apologise) claim is the best testing
> signal for that other well-publicised "test".
>> The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
>> material.
>>
> On the whole if this is all you can criticise a reader might take it
> as a recommendation.

Huh? That is all I can criticize? Have you read carefully? Have you
skipped the other "concerns" posted here? In fact, I have not found one
thing about your method that is an improvement over DBT.

> By the way- did you try it?

No, and certainly no plans to, given these huge deficiencies of your method.

>> >
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>

[ludovic mirabel]

chung > wrote in message >...
> ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > chung > wrote in message >...
> >> ludovic mirabel wrote:
> >> > chung > wrote in message >...
> >> >> Bob Marcus wrote:
> >> >> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> >> > See discussion below:
> >> >
> Mirabel:
> > Shall I say what other test method is not like listening to music?
> Chung:
> With DBT, you can listen to music the way you normally audition
> equipment at a store, i.e., listen for differences in normal
> reproduction. Plus, DBT exercises the equipment the way they are meant
> to be used. Huge improvements over yours.
>
At least on paper.
So using left-right I prefer one component even though I can not
judge imaging, crosstalk, minute residual speaker imbalances,
(inaudible after careful equalisation with my two digital equalisers)
etc. (Of course you have also telepathic vision concerning my
preamp's custom level controls deficiences).
If I tell you that the center image does not move you're free to
believe me or not. If I tell you that next I put my preferred
component in both channels and return for refund if horrible things
happen to imaging, crosstalk, power what not you may say it is not
research.
No it is not. It is just a modest home-practical way of avoiding
the nightmare of sighted bias that I read about in RAHE every day.
That's all. It does not replace experienced listening to a variety of
good recordings and it adds nothing to it. (I discover nothing
"subtle" that I do not hear otherwise)
Now let's see what you have on offer for a $ 600:00 switch. It
ought to be a huge improvement with all the the loving speculative
theory you lavish on it.
I must come now to the boring part. You heard it so many times
before- in fact it gives you headache. You may have even answered it
and I missed it but just this one time repeat it- if only for such as
All Ears waiting for the Voice of the Science to speak out.
It so happens that ALL the available published audiophile panel
ABX component comparisons had one outcome and one only: "They all
sound the same". All: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Now Mr.
All Ears has 3 choices:
1) Everything in audio really does sound the same (unless it
measures grossly diferently eg. Wattage etc). Of course many think
that if you believe this nonsense you'll believe anything.
Or: 2) There is something the matter with the "great
improvement" which makes it useless for a cross- section of
audiophiles component comparison test.(Research is another matter
entirely)
3) Buy the switch and sign up for PC courses. But what if
you're one of the hopeless ABXers (ask the researchers about them?)
How will you know if you are hopeless or if everything really sounds
the same?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. Next, if the "great improvement" does not pan out tell us about
concentrating on the speakers- but how do you know that if you ABXed
good full range speakers with a listener panel they wouldn't sound the
same to most of them too?
Room improvement? If you had my room you'd know that selling the
house would be the only remedy. I tried wall fibreglass pads,
bookshelves located strategically, bags in the corner and all that. I
heard much, much less difference than between the silver cable a la
Kimber and the zipcord.

Previous text: (if you lasted this far)
> > Especially if you're using pink noise that some of your colleagues
> > (perhaps not you, in which case I apologise) claim is the best testing
> > signal for that other well-publicised "test".
> >> The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
> >> material.
> >>
> > On the whole if this is all you can criticise a reader might take it
> > as a recommendation.
>
> Huh? That is all I can criticize? Have you read carefully? Have you
> skipped the other "concerns" posted here? In fact, I have not found one
> thing about your method that is an improvement over DBT.
>
> > By the way- did you try it?
>
> No, and certainly no plans to, given these huge deficiencies of your method.
>
> >> >
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >

[chris]

Hi Ludovic

I too have tried some of the modes of testing you suggest. Having found them
being suggested in a different forum.

I used it on some speaker cables in purely subjective tests, using no meters
scopes or gauges of any sort.
As we all know by now (having been told SO MANY TIMES)
that copper is copper and all differences are at least 140db below 10V or
10Amps ,non linear non proportional.

When using different wires for Left and Right speakers in mono mode I of
course did NOT hear and tonal difference or change in the noise floor, and
in stereo i did NOT hear the sound image wander about the sound stage, the
depth of the stereo image was NOT grossly distorted, and these effect were
NOT highly frequency(note) dependant.
It is NOT a method for determining any differences in any part on the signal
chain, most definitely not revealing any difference in amplifiers. You
canNOT easily isolate or nullify the variations of the room effects /
speaker placing by swapping the left and right wires.

But as these tests were done on AB basis but weren't done DBT all of the
above results are of course NOT valid.



"ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
news:7dn8b.425040$o%2.192669@sccrnsc02...
> chung > wrote in message
>...
> > ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > > chung > wrote in message
>...
> > >> ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > >> > chung > wrote in message
>...
> > >> >> Bob Marcus wrote:
> > >> >> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> > >> > See discussion below:
> > >> >
> > Mirabel:
> > > Shall I say what other test method is not like listening to music?
> > Chung:
> > With DBT, you can listen to music the way you normally audition
> > equipment at a store, i.e., listen for differences in normal
> > reproduction. Plus, DBT exercises the equipment the way they are meant
> > to be used. Huge improvements over yours.
> >
> At least on paper.
> So using left-right I prefer one component even though I can not
> judge imaging, crosstalk, minute residual speaker imbalances,
> (inaudible after careful equalisation with my two digital equalisers)
> etc. (Of course you have also telepathic vision concerning my
> preamp's custom level controls deficiences).
> If I tell you that the center image does not move you're free to
> believe me or not. If I tell you that next I put my preferred
> component in both channels and return for refund if horrible things
> happen to imaging, crosstalk, power what not you may say it is not
> research.
> No it is not. It is just a modest home-practical way of avoiding
> the nightmare of sighted bias that I read about in RAHE every day.
> That's all. It does not replace experienced listening to a variety of
> good recordings and it adds nothing to it. (I discover nothing
> "subtle" that I do not hear otherwise)
> Now let's see what you have on offer for a $ 600:00 switch. It
> ought to be a huge improvement with all the the loving speculative
> theory you lavish on it.
> I must come now to the boring part. You heard it so many times
> before- in fact it gives you headache. You may have even answered it
> and I missed it but just this one time repeat it- if only for such as
> All Ears waiting for the Voice of the Science to speak out.
> It so happens that ALL the available published audiophile panel
> ABX component comparisons had one outcome and one only: "They all
> sound the same". All: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Now Mr.
> All Ears has 3 choices:
> 1) Everything in audio really does sound the same (unless it
> measures grossly diferently eg. Wattage etc). Of course many think
> that if you believe this nonsense you'll believe anything.
> Or: 2) There is something the matter with the "great
> improvement" which makes it useless for a cross- section of
> audiophiles component comparison test.(Research is another matter
> entirely)
> 3) Buy the switch and sign up for PC courses. But what if
> you're one of the hopeless ABXers (ask the researchers about them?)
> How will you know if you are hopeless or if everything really sounds
> the same?
> Ludovic Mirabel
> P.S. Next, if the "great improvement" does not pan out tell us about
> concentrating on the speakers- but how do you know that if you ABXed
> good full range speakers with a listener panel they wouldn't sound the
> same to most of them too?
> Room improvement? If you had my room you'd know that selling the
> house would be the only remedy. I tried wall fibreglass pads,
> bookshelves located strategically, bags in the corner and all that. I
> heard much, much less difference than between the silver cable a la
> Kimber and the zipcord.
>
> Previous text: (if you lasted this far)
> > > Especially if you're using pink noise that some of your colleagues
> > > (perhaps not you, in which case I apologise) claim is the best testing
> > > signal for that other well-publicised "test".
> > >> The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
> > >> material.
> > >>
> > > On the whole if this is all you can criticise a reader might take it
> > > as a recommendation.
> >
> > Huh? That is all I can criticize? Have you read carefully? Have you
> > skipped the other "concerns" posted here? In fact, I have not found one
> > thing about your method that is an improvement over DBT.
> >
> > > By the way- did you try it?
> >
> > No, and certainly no plans to, given these huge deficiencies of your
method.
> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >> >
> > >
>

[ludovic mirabel]

"chris" > wrote in message >...
> Hi Ludovic
>
> I too have tried some of the modes of testing you suggest. Having found them
> being suggested in a different forum.
>
> I used it on some speaker cables in purely subjective tests, using no meters
> scopes or gauges of any sort.
> As we all know by now (having been told SO MANY TIMES)
> that copper is copper and all differences are at least 140db below 10V or
> 10Amps ,non linear non proportional.
>
> When using different wires for Left and Right speakers in mono mode I of
> course did NOT hear and tonal difference or change in the noise floor, and
> in stereo i did NOT hear the sound image wander about the sound stage, the
> depth of the stereo image was NOT grossly distorted, and these effect were
> NOT highly frequency(note) dependant.
> It is NOT a method for determining any differences in any part on the signal
> chain, most definitely not revealing any difference in amplifiers. You
> canNOT easily isolate or nullify the variations of the room effects /
> speaker placing by swapping the left and right wires.
>
You do "nullify and isolate" the room/speaker effects VERY
EASILY if you random- swap your component be it the amp, OR the
interconnects from one side of the system to the other. If you still
prefer, blind, one amp or one type of interconnects whichever side of
the room they are on you "nullified and isolated" the room/speaker
effects.
This seems to me so obvious that I suspect that you did not
follow the swapping protocol as outlined below. If you don't swap
you're wasting your time.

> But as these tests were done on AB basis but weren't done DBT all of the
> above results are of course NOT valid.
>
The "double blind" technique was a necessary forward step in medical
drug research so that the researcher did not impart his enthusiasm to
the patient.
If your helper is your wife who couldn't care less, single blind is
good enough. There is no need to slavishly imitate methods designed
for completely different tasks just to get the reflected glory of the
prestigious name.
And using the name does NOT automatically confer validity.
Thanks for your interest. Ludovic Mirabel

> "ludovic mirabel" > wrote in message
> news:7dn8b.425040$o%2.192669@sccrnsc02...
> > chung > wrote in message
> >...
> > > ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > > > chung > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> ludovic mirabel wrote:
> > > >> > chung > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> >> Bob Marcus wrote:
> > > >> >> > (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
> news:<%wV4b.329114$o%2.151942@sccrnsc02>...
> > > >> > See discussion below:
> > > >> >
> Mirabel:
> > > > Shall I say what other test method is not like listening to music?
> > > Chung:
> > > With DBT, you can listen to music the way you normally audition
> > > equipment at a store, i.e., listen for differences in normal
> > > reproduction. Plus, DBT exercises the equipment the way they are meant
> > > to be used. Huge improvements over yours.
> > >
> > At least on paper.
> > So using left-right I prefer one component even though I can not
> > judge imaging, crosstalk, minute residual speaker imbalances,
> > (inaudible after careful equalisation with my two digital equalisers)
> > etc. (Of course you have also telepathic vision concerning my
> > preamp's custom level controls deficiences).
> > If I tell you that the center image does not move you're free to
> > believe me or not. If I tell you that next I put my preferred
> > component in both channels and return for refund if horrible things
> > happen to imaging, crosstalk, power what not you may say it is not
> > research.
> > No it is not. It is just a modest home-practical way of avoiding
> > the nightmare of sighted bias that I read about in RAHE every day.
> > That's all. It does not replace experienced listening to a variety of
> > good recordings and it adds nothing to it. (I discover nothing
> > "subtle" that I do not hear otherwise)
> > Now let's see what you have on offer for a $ 600:00 switch. It
> > ought to be a huge improvement with all the the loving speculative
> > theory you lavish on it.
> > I must come now to the boring part. You heard it so many times
> > before- in fact it gives you headache. You may have even answered it
> > and I missed it but just this one time repeat it- if only for such as
> > All Ears waiting for the Voice of the Science to speak out.
> > It so happens that ALL the available published audiophile panel
> > ABX component comparisons had one outcome and one only: "They all
> > sound the same". All: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Now Mr.
> > All Ears has 3 choices:
> > 1) Everything in audio really does sound the same (unless it
> > measures grossly diferently eg. Wattage etc). Of course many think
> > that if you believe this nonsense you'll believe anything.
> > Or: 2) There is something the matter with the "great
> > improvement" which makes it useless for a cross- section of
> > audiophiles component comparison test.(Research is another matter
> > entirely)
> > 3) Buy the switch and sign up for PC courses. But what if
> > you're one of the hopeless ABXers (ask the researchers about them?)
> > How will you know if you are hopeless or if everything really sounds
> > the same?
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > P.S. Next, if the "great improvement" does not pan out tell us about
> > concentrating on the speakers- but how do you know that if you ABXed
> > good full range speakers with a listener panel they wouldn't sound the
> > same to most of them too?
> > Room improvement? If you had my room you'd know that selling the
> > house would be the only remedy. I tried wall fibreglass pads,
> > bookshelves located strategically, bags in the corner and all that. I
> > heard much, much less difference than between the silver cable a la
> > Kimber and the zipcord.
> >
> > Previous text: (if you lasted this far)
> > > > Especially if you're using pink noise that some of your colleagues
> > > > (perhaps not you, in which case I apologise) claim is the best testing
> > > > signal for that other well-publicised "test".
> > > >> The rest of your post snipped, due to repetition of previously posted
> > > >> material.
> > > >>
> > > > On the whole if this is all you can criticise a reader might take it
> > > > as a recommendation.
> > >
> > > Huh? That is all I can criticize? Have you read carefully? Have you
> > > skipped the other "concerns" posted here? In fact, I have not found one
> > > thing about your method that is an improvement over DBT.
> > >
> > > > By the way- did you try it?
> > >
> > > No, and certainly no plans to, given these huge deficiencies of your
> method.
> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > > >> >
> > > >
> >