Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
Ref: relative merits of Long term listening tests...
After noting the long thread here on this issue, it is apparent that is a general feeling that a long term process is a more definitive method of making a decision regarding a system and its "long time wearing" qualities. As I have noted in the past, we all have to contend with the variables of our "ear-mind" process and its input to some type of "decision" process...which is somewhat fickled also (with its own variables based on bias, education, etc.) With all the variables that the above statements have addressed...we all have these issues to contend with..we arrive at these conclusions at a different "time-rate"...therefore, each will be somewhat different in deciding "yea" or "nay" on a given audio issue. As I have stated before, the following process will probably get you a system that is, perhaps, better for you at a given time: Sit down in the comfort of your Audio space and listen in that favored spot and decide if a given system is right to your "audio psyche"...if so, go with it! Be happy, enjoy it. If things change later, then so be it...change to something better. Enjoy the whole process. If it takes two weeks or a month..so be it! You are satisfying your own variables...not someone that presumes to know what you like...for those that have an "agenda" or an "evangelistic fervor" you might well accord them a "knowing smile" and go about your business of selecting a system according to your taste! Enjoy your decisions...I, and probably most on this Newsgroup, will be happy for you! Tell us what you were striving for and what you ended up with...how it sounds. That is what this Newsgroup can evolve into, as it should! Enjoy the music and your system! Leonard... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a few minutes apart. -MIKE |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote:
Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a few minutes apart. -MIKE __________________________________________________ _______ Mike... Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on it goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a purchase. Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that there be a very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion on this matter. If one takes a week or a month...this is just not within the framework of the "agenda". Therefore, the picture must be painted that only "short-time" analysis is needed. I merely pointed out that many people do take longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic. Also, there is nothing unusual about this and is perfectly acceptable within your own personal Audio domain. Note also, that the usual purpose of sorting out differences is related to purchasing decisions. In the cable example, I have tended to switch cables and stick with the newer cable and then within a few hours or a day or two..switch back and see what my general feeling was. One can detect a difference with a short-term switch, however, not much analysis can be made as to whether it is an improvement or just "different". So perhaps the post has expanded into something a bit more meaningful. Anyway, good listening.. Leonard.... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
... Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a few minutes apart. surely both differences are as valid as each other. The only problem between accurately perceiving and defining these differences is that, human short term memory is very un-reliable in remembering the subtle differences and the long term memory grows accustomed to things easly and will only notice a difference in the short term. To spot and define (subjectivly) a difference I agree with Chung, it has to be very quick swops on the same tracks ie using AB switching. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:47:26 +0000, Nousaine wrote:
lcw999 wrote: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote: Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a few minutes apart. -MIKE ________________________________________________ _________ Mike... Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on it goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a purchase. Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that there be a very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion on this matter. If one takes a week or a month...this is just not within the framework of the "agenda". Therefore, the picture must be painted that only "short-time" analysis is needed. I merely pointed out that many people do take longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic. I'm guessing that I am considered to have an 'agenda' here. However, the characteristics of audio gear do not cnahge with time and performance errors will be present from time 0 with suitable program material. Also with any sensory input differences will be most apparent when the stimuli are presented as closely together as possible. We differ here..with the quick switching only the most obvious differences will be noted...the more subtle elements will generally pass you by...thus, the long wait and trial scenario will bring this to the surface. I'm guessing that the real agenda on this item rests with reviewing and merchandising techniques which are expressly designed to allow factors other than sound to influence purchase behavior. Again, bad ole vendors..presenting factors that the High-ender cannot distinguish from fiction. I don't buy this...this horse has been ridden to death. How does a selected few seem to see this, while the mass of "unwashed" audiophiles cannot. This won't float anymore. Another tact is required now..this was being floated back in the middle 90's...mean ole vendors have been fooling us all...enough already!! The latter is needed because there are so many audio product categories (amplifiers, media players. cabling) where performance has become a commodity and merchandising has to rely on factors other than true sonic performance. It's like laundry soap; a new color and a little perfume are coupled with "new, improved, cleans you clothes better." More of the same...as stated before, we all have been brought up in this Capitalistic Society, with all its foibles and greed and we are all familiar with the "new and improved" syndrome. Improvements do come along in the Electronics world...we all see and hear them and take the "hawking of the Ad world" for what it is...oversell and excess..but, this should not cover up slow but sure improvement. If one does not acknowledge that, then so be it...stay with the ole dated but tried and true stuff! But, to come on this forum and consistently imply that the majority here are insensitive to all this "hawking" and are somewhat "dim" is a bit much! Also, there is nothing unusual about this and is perfectly acceptable within your own personal Audio domain. Note also, that the usual purpose of sorting out differences is related to purchasing decisions. In the cable example, I have tended to switch cables and stick with the newer cable and then within a few hours or a day or two..switch back and see what my general feeling was. One can detect a difference with a short-term switch, however, not much analysis can be made as to whether it is an improvement or just "different". Notice how the underlying assumption here is that there is always a sonic "difference" when in fact the cables, unless grossly deficient, in all likelihood are sonically identical. Again, you are being directed your myriad of other statements made on this issue. No such underlying assumption was drawn.. The issue came down to certain cables having different characteristics, but finding it difficult to determine just what the difference was and accessing some type of value judgement to that factor. It is obvious you do not think there are notable differences in cables...it has been "redundantly" expressed in these Newsgroups for years...over and over and over. We differ, case closed. There is almost a humorous element to this absolute necessity to "vent" ones anti-cable rage in every post...it does get boring. So perhaps the post has expanded into something a bit more meaningful. Anyway, good listening.. Leonard.... We should all remember that as humans, unless there is hearing damage, all have audibility thresholds that fall within a narrow range. We differ..that range is not narrow..nor is the variations in frequency deviations caused by the ear cavity, ear wax and a number of factors having to do with the inability to detect the deviations. Chemical variations in an individuals body has repercussions in the humans audio interpretations. The implications that somehow we have this all figured out is not parallel with the "real world". Deviations at large Plants where these ear tests are given indicate a varied frequency range.. some based on Generations that had their ears pounded in their youth. This is a bit more of a factor than you are aware of. While training is useful for establishing sound quality variables that may include experience outside normal hearing experience (phantom images; hearing 'sound' from a place where no sound is being made) for example where normal hearing is circumvented and for categorizing and describing sound quality variables. And, gathering program materials that tax audio systems is very useful. But sound quality differences, like other sensory stimuli, will be MOST apparent when the 2 stimuli are presented side by side. Widening the time interval can only reduce true acoustical sensititivity, although it often increases sensitivity to non-sonic factors. A repeat of the above scenario...we differ...a quick switch scenario only brings out the radical differences..none of those elements that require extended listening are addressed here,i.e., ear fatigue after an extended period of time. What "non-sonic" factors are increased by exended listening?... and if so...is that not exactly what occurs as you listen to your system over a period of time?? Perhaps you are working on an "agenda"...some structured listening method that cannot stand if extended listening is introduced into the mix! Interesting! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Short term - Long term listening
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Long term comparisons-meaningless | High End Audio | |||
rec.audio.dbt | High End Audio | |||
What is so high end about high end? | High End Audio | |||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio |