Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"What kind of 'evidence' is possible for descriptions of my experience?
How old are you? I am 54. I have owned stereo equipment for more than 30 years. During that time I have made many upgrades. I have also spent a lot of time listening in audio salons, educating my ear by listening to some of the very best stuff out there. My current 'system' is the result of rutheless and uncompromising auditions. Nothing in it is for show. Everything has earned its way in." All of the above bears not in the least on reports of being an exception to the benchmark which shows that difference in amps and wire result in levels close to the random guess level, using listening alone with a broad range of listening experience and gear ownership. Such reported exceptions can now be gauged against the benchmark. If one such would be found it would be all the better because it would allow us to see if the kind of above midigating factors are the basis for exceptions. |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 4/24/04 7:02 PM, in article %lCic.23081$w96.1764690@attbi_s54, "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54... In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the serial tweak idea hasn't been validated. In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted. But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison. I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are. You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly. I would have to agree, to illustrate how aboutt he following 2 systems: Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003 NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4 speakers in a room with acoustic treatments. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04...
On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together have made a noticeable difference. I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one, where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but to no avail. There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a dsicernible difference. Elementary. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Hum from an amp [WAS: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing,
On 4/25/04 2:44 PM, in article UFTic.33324$_L6.1850070@attbi_s53, "Michael
Scarpitti" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04... On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together have made a noticeable difference. I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one, where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but to no avail. There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a dsicernible difference. Elementary. I have fought RFI and 60Hz hum almost as long as I have been an engineer. Grounding and shielding I am sure made a difference if he had a rat's nest of wires like I do. Right now I am noticing a slight hum from my amp (louder when you turn it on, settling down when the amp finishes the soft start) - definite microphonics. Does anyone know of some easy ways I can reduce this hum? |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 25 Apr 2004 14:18:04 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 4/24/04 7:02 PM, in article %lCic.23081$w96.1764690@attbi_s54, "Michael Scarpitti" wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message news:KBiic.13512$w96.1245040@attbi_s54... In the end no subject was able to reliablt identify either of the two systems in spite of the radical differences between them. My conclusion is that the serial tweak idea hasn't been validated. In this test subjects were encouraged to be as "evaluative" as they wanted. But, quite frankly, the idea that several up-grades work in concert has never been shown to happen. IOW the idea that several factors with "just below" JND will combine to produce above threshold effect simply has never been shown to be true even when subjected to a radically high-level comparison. I can assure you that the sum of all the improvements I have made is greater than any single one, and that it is observable. Each independently may not be 'obvious', but together they certainly are. You may not notice one penny in your pocket, but 200, certainly. I would have to agree, to illustrate how aboutt he following 2 systems: Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003 NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4 speakers in a room with acoustic treatments. To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would be the audible differences........................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04... On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together have made a noticeable difference. I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one, where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but to no avail. There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a dsicernible difference. Elementary. So you say. OTOH I made two systems using the same speakers with the Tweak system having high-end interconnects and speaker wires, vacumn tubes, outboard DAC, high-end power amp, vibration dampers and careful wire dress. All these I've heard would be successful 'tweaks.' But even when used in the same system it was not sonically different from a system with a 25-year old $99 solid state pre-amp, mid-fi power amp, junk box rcas, 16-guage autosound speaker cables with differeing lengths for each channel and with wire dress intentionally made to be 'sub-standard' to 10 subjects listening in isolation in the sweetest of sweet spots. My conclusion is that when someone tells me with 'assurance' that such and so 'sounds' are being made I just don't accept it without more definitive evidence. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:44:04 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Ffxic.14414$cF6.592486@attbi_s04... On 23 Apr 2004 13:47:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Upgrading several things often shows a cumulative effect that cannot be pinned down to just one piece. I can tell you that since I changed speaker cables, interconnect, and added RF traps, these steps together have made a noticeable difference. I can tell you that this will have made no audible difference whatever, but that would simply bring us right back to square one, where you will claim that because you hear it, it *must* have real existence. We have attempted to explain to you why this isn't so, but to no avail. There is no'synergism' whatsoever. 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5. If 0.5 is by itself indiscernible, but 1.0 is, then 1.5 will certainly make a dsicernible difference. Elementary. Who mentioned synergy? I simply tell you that there will be no audible difference (because your numbers are imaginary, and several orders of magnitude too large), and I'll back my opinion with $10,000 in cold hard cash. Does your wallet match your ego? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 4/25/04 7:27 PM, in article EPXic.35016$aQ6.1882164@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Who mentioned synergy? I simply tell you that there will be no audible difference (because your numbers are imaginary, and several orders of magnitude too large), and I'll back my opinion with $10,000 in cold hard cash. Does your wallet match your ego? You might want to pick up the latest issue of Audio Express - they have an interesting article about speaker cables ... (BTW, they do all kind of measurements, find differences, but so small it is hard to tell if the reviewers have "Golden Ears" or there is something) |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
... Timothy A. Seufert wrote: Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think about that a little. It's because of how our mind processes data. Take you driving down the road - you see a stopsign. Now, our minds are too slow to process every single thing. It cheats by not "scanning" the entire image in real-time, but doing what your video game does - textures and geomerty. It sees: octagon red "stop" adjust for size. This way it doesn't store individual images for the most part, but merely does pattern matching with the millions of pieces of data in its visual memory. Our brain then stores the information as a pattern/algorythm. Remember pattern and not the raw data. Also, this explains why our memories are "fuzzy" at times - when it doubt, it matches the closest pattern and does very little error checking. Specific memories are remembered, but these usually are special (stressful)events - maybe a few thousand in our lifetime. The memory requirements are too severe. What happens with optical illusions is that our minds, even when we know how it works, still want to default to the easy setting. It takes lots of concentration or a second look to double-check if the expected data isn't what we actually are seeing. Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well. IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better, it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring problems. I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes, we don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives symphony. And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive the "music" distorts response. Accordingly, I postulate that if quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing *what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused. Normally, audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability to play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact *after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and dynamic bass"). Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something else. They zero in on that. That is how a-b testing should be used and is of value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen for certain artifacts. It is *very* different than having somebody listen to two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they hear quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have to listen to the other piece of equipment. And if they are normally pretty astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything* creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for that purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong purpose. |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003 NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4 speakers in a room with acoustic treatments. To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would be the audible differences........................... Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room. Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact shade of gray is he operating under ... ? |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
Hum from an amp [WAS: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing,
Bromo wrote:
I have fought RFI and 60Hz hum almost as long as I have been an engineer. Grounding and shielding I am sure made a difference if he had a rat's nest of wires like I do. Right now I am noticing a slight hum from my amp (louder when you turn it on, settling down when the amp finishes the soft start) - definite microphonics. Does anyone know of some easy ways I can reduce this hum? Well, if you as someone who has been fighting 60 Hz hum as long as you have been an engineer, and supposedly one who is familiar with your amp, can't figure out how to reduce this hum, what are the chances of the rest of us being able to help? . Having said that, I would follow the usual trouble-shooting procedures. Disconnect everything except the speakers. Is there still hum? Short the inputs to ground. Is there still hum? Report results and we can take the next steps. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 26 Apr 2004 02:01:55 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003 NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4 speakers in a room with acoustic treatments. To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would be the audible differences........................... Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room. Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact shade of gray is he operating under ... ? When played at a level where the Yamaha is not clipping, there will almost certainly be *no* audible difference into the Thiels. Try it and see. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#377
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#378
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Nothing so simple as the tautology you want to impart. There is a
benchmark of a test and results thereof showing resuots close to random guessing. Any claims reported by you and others are by definition a claim to being an exception to the results, no matter how many or how often such reports are made. It is obvious how anyone can test to see if they are an exception, to see if the content of their reports are the product of the perception process or reside in the gear. Using the bit of gear in question and comparing it to another will show or not a difference of rising above the theshold of audibility. The basis or traditions related to purchases is not relevant. The collective of the results underlying the benchmark is a failure to disprove that amps/wire sound different. It is the reports to the contrary that are of interest. As to forming a benchmark, if the one in question doesn't suffice for some reasone, then an alternative can be created; but should have similar minimal guidelines for blinding. I think it would be very interesting for someone who thinks a seperate series of tests might provide other results to do so. In science when test results are contrary to commonly held ideas, duplication of tests is a normal step. It does if I'm right about 'experience'. You're begging the question. You're saying 'this cannot be an exception to the rule because there is a rule and here are no exceptions', and the existence of such a 'rule' is precisely the issue. I am certain that what I can now hear as far as differences between various components would not have been so obvious to me when I started out. Secondly, you have not provided sufficient evidence for a 'rule' to which I am some sort of 'exception'. Every day in audio shops (and homes) throughout the world people are auditioning audio equipment and making purchasing decisions based on what they hear or don't hear. You are not in a position to make such a sweeping generalization about what people can or cannot hear. I know ONLY what I can hear. I neither know nor care what others can or cannot hear. I have not invested significantly in 'tweaks': only in a few RF traps and good quality interconnect, which is far being from top-end stuff. I know that some people have bought all kinds of 'tweaks', whose value to me is not established. That does not bother me in the slightest. It's their money, after all. |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the
"cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest quantity of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate" so hard and use anxiety as the main excuse." I think it the other way round. They use it as a marketing tool by wich in ads and "audition" articles the latest wiz bang red hot "night and day" item is revealed, heightening anxiety that one's current gear is getting hopelessly out of date and not up to snuff. Having raised the level, they offer "advice" as to how the new thing solves problems one might not have known existed or is suddenly discovered at root of all manner of causes for current gear to not be state of the art and offer/facilatate one being able to resolve one's "problems". |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:PMbjc.42446$aQ6.2505359@attbi_s51... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ... Timothy A. Seufert wrote: Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think about that a little. ... snips....... Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well. IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better, it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring problems. I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes, we don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives symphony. Oh so context doesn't count? When was the last time you "heard" an auto wreck in the concert hall or in your listening room! Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living room over the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-) And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive the "music" distorts response. Which would be what? And what response? And why the snobbish "music" only perception? All this stage-setting trys to accord music a special acoustic profile when, in fact, music provides an easy case compared to many environmental sounds recorded in nature. Test conditions for one. Poor performing audio equipment for another. And this "snobbish attitude" is based on the fact that science (yes science) is finding that music is hardwired into the brain in ways we don't yet fully understand. One of the things apparently that makes us uniquely human. I'm not sure radial plane engines hold the same place of honor, although I do agree they make a demanding test. Not that there's anything wrong with recorded music as a source but, by and large, acoustically its not that challenging compared to basshead cds, loons on the lake, radial engined aircraft, many cinema soundtracks, steam locomotives and space craft lift-offnot to mention test signals. Sure its the most common source used (even if you count bluegrass as music and not concentrated boredom) but in terms of acoustical playback timbral and dynamics challenge its not the most difficult challenge to any given playback system. Call to higher authority notwithstanding. Well, to tell you the truth, Tom I also have used natural sounds (particularly the Crown SASS P demo disk) to test things...but funny thing is, I evaluate them the same way as I do music...do they sound "right", do they sound "real". And I can tell you some components do, and some don't. Accordingly, I postulate that if quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing *what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused. What would anybody listen-for except those orthogonal sound quality categories? And how would one fail to hear them with a shortened clip? Do they disappear on everything except full-length classicall music? Strawmen marching in a row. Did I say anything about classical music? And on a shortened clip, you have not established any context. The ear-brain, hearing a whole piece of music absorbs the pattern...the reflections, ambience, apparent depth and placement, the weight of timbre in that environment, etc. This establishes a context for determining, say, if the bass sounds "right". Then one can zero in on the bass. Just zeroing in on the bass by itself provides no context. In my opinion, what gets 'confused' in bais-controlled listening tests is the subject who has convinced himself that psychosomatic "differences" have an acoustical cause because the answer is withheld before the decision is made. Gosh we never would have guessed your opinion without that explanation! :-) The music is in another class altogether. For example I'm listening to the WEMU Sunday Blues radio shows, as I type, and the recent tunes (Lou Ann Barton "Maybe" and Irma Thomas ("It's Raining written by Naomi Neville) are spectcalar on my M-Audio 24/96 and Monsoon speaker system. The "music" is great but the songs would sound less impressive on my main system because the music is great but the production is a function of its time and location. I wouldn't know. I listen to FM over two very good systems and a set of very good headphones, so sound limitations never intrude..it simply isn't an issue. Normally, audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability to play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact *after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and dynamic bass"). The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x context is one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves to your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods for specifying subtle sonic differences? Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have tried to tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of hand as you try to do with my arguments. With nothing but your own beliefs in opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to validate but promote heartily. Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something else. So in the "evaluation" mode one has to listen to one particular sonic category on each pass? How many categories do you have? Does one have to listen all the way through every selection to form an answer? I'm hoping that you choose shorter pieces then. Elsewise one might spend several days to find even a substandered piece of equipment. Are you deliberately being provacative, or is it you just don't listen or grasp? Open ended listening is just that...the music and its sonic reproduction presents itself to you without foreplan...then you hear things...things that may or may not sound "right"...then you investigate...then your return to open-ended until/unless something else "presents itself". With a new component, you have no way of knowing going in what is going to present itself. That is the purpose of home trial of a new component in your own system. And when you are finished, you have a pretty good idea of the units sonic strengths and weakness in an absolute sense, in your system, playing the music you enjoy. And you decide if it is an improvement over what you had before, and if so, whether it is worth the money to make the change. If not, you keep looking, or you retire back to what you had and be happy. They zero in on that. So what else is there to "hear" if one can't identify once source from the other? Perhaps we've covered this already. That is how a-b testing should be used and is of value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen for certain artifacts. BTW that's Harman. How long is their test? How long are the segments? Ask Steven, not me. But they do train to hear specific things and to evaluate on those things. It is *very* different than having somebody listen to two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they hear quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have to listen to the other piece of equipment. Help me here. Don't you have a set of recordings (including challenging segments) that you think provide specific acoustical challenges to audio equipment? I do and I have those pieces and those segments which highlight 'differences' all congregated on a single CD-R so I can use the same material for every evaluation and in the same 1st repeat order. It also enables me to repeat segments with certain challenges as many times as necssary to gain a firm grasp on the level of competence. I don't plan "challenges". I have typical music of the type I regularly enjoy, and I listen to it. I have enough of it that I don't always have to use the same music. With extended, evaluative listening you are able to establish the context from the music itself. If the substitute improves or deteriorates the sense of "rightness" that I have already in the system, then I try to investigate what and how and why that is happening. And if they are normally pretty astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything* creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for that purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong purpose. Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the "cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest quantity of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate" so hard and use anxiety as the main excuse. And so another dismissal. Why not instead try to fathom what lies behind the argument, and hold your own biases at bay for awhile. |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 4/26/04 1:32 PM, in article 4Jbjc.42424$aQ6.2503864@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 26 Apr 2004 02:01:55 GMT, Bromo wrote: On 4/25/04 7:21 PM, in article iKXic.34840$_L6.1985446@attbi_s53, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: Compare a c.1985 CD Magnavox player played through a Yamaha amp into inexpensive Klipsch bookshelf speakers in a live undamped room with a c.2003 NAD C540i played through a NAD S100/200 preamp/amp pair into 2 Thiel 2.4 speakers in a room with acoustic treatments. To be a relevant comparison, you'd need to compare the two systems in the same room. To be a truly relevant comparison in the context of the thread, you'd have to use the same speakers. Now consider what would be the audible differences........................... Well, they were in the same room - and there is such a large difference, the Yamaha based system is in the upstairs exercise room. Bus still - there is a large difference, so in the extreme, what the previous gentleman was saying *is* true - the only question is what exact shade of gray is he operating under ... ? When played at a level where the Yamaha is not clipping, there will almost certainly be *no* audible difference into the Thiels. Try it and see. Already did and heard a big difference, actually - the Yamaha sounded less bass-y than the NAD at low levels - and there was very little low end at even tiny levels of volume when driving the Thiels. Sorry - I suppose it is possible that they were overdriven even at low levels? The Yamaha is rated to 30W or 40W/1kHz. |
#382
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#383
|
|||
|
|||
Hum from an amp [WAS: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing,
|
#384
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Nousaine"
The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x context is one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves to your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods for specifying subtle sonic differences? "Harry Lavo" Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have tried to tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of hand as you try to do with my arguments. With nothing but your own beliefs in opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to validate but promote heartily. It should be obvious by now that if any of the so-called objectivists really wanted to establish the value of the dbt as they advocate it for audio use, once and for all, they would be working with you to help devise a 'validation test'. Instead all you are getting is criticism and arguements. This never-ending dbt debate is not about truth - it's about winning and being superior - in debating, nothing else. It is not likely you will change their strong opinions, no matter what you do. This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort of behavior. All of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other. Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate here under these conditions. Regards, Mike "I used to beat my head against the wall because it feels so good when I stop." |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#387
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#388
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine) This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability to "hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions ( loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or another? Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own. I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though. I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit they own 'isn't really all that good'. I have seen them say they own such devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2) their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of these, it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without it being a contradiction. As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question it in others. So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set of listeners under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be judged as "insufficiently experienced". One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences. Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables. I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation test' of DBT is in the works, then? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#389
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#390
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
(Mkuller) wrote:
"Nousaine" "Harry Lavo" ....many snips.....This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort of behavior. All of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other. Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate here under these conditions. Regards, Harry doesn't need to win any debate. What he, and you, should do is supply some evidence that amps and wires contribute anything to sound reproduction that is not dependent upon the internal bias of any individual "listener." |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Either that, or your 'test subjects' are insufficiently experienced. I repeat: It takes experience to become good at listening. Most 'average listeners' don't know what to listen for. That's funny. Mr. Lavo says that it's best if you don't know what to listen for. Which is it? I have been in audio shops where there was a fellow listening to records on a high-end turntable, and who went wild at the conclusion of a side of classical music. (This was about 4 years ago). I heard the inner-groove distortion, which was to me almost unbearable. I could not believe what I was seeing. This man was completely unaware of to the (to me) clearly audible distortion. Maybe he was just enjoying the music itself. Horrors! |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#393
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
Nousaine" wrote in message news:PMbjc.42446$aQ6.2505359@attbi_s51... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ... Timothy A. Seufert wrote: Same thing applies to sound perception. You might want to think about that a little. ... snips....... Our hearing works the same - it's able to handle hundreds of things at once, but it gets sloppy in order to save time and space. It's easily tricked and overloaded as well. IE - if we expect a certain sound or think something is better, it usually is processed as such unless there are glaring problems. I would suggest that this also works in reverse. We can hear "sound thresholds". We can hear individual sounds. Until the brain processes, we don't know if these are an auto wreck or a discordant note in an Ives symphony. Oh so context doesn't count? When was the last time you "heard" an auto wreck in the concert hall or in your listening room! Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living room over the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-) Sure it is. When was the last time you heard a car crash in your room or where you were in the direct acoustic field? We've ALL heard car crashes from an acoustically distant perspective. "The schreeching tires, the bustin' glass the woeful cries that I heard last ....oh where oh where could my baby be...?" Bu tif my listening room were within 50 yards of where woulld be likely to occur ...I'd move.... most likely because the ambient noise level would be too high for anything but a sound-resistent construction. The latter is unacceptable to me because it costs too much and it tends to accentuate room mode peaks. And anything that interferes with our brain's ability to perceive the "music" distorts response. Which would be what? And what response? And why the snobbish "music" only perception? All this stage-setting trys to accord music a special acoustic profile when, in fact, music provides an easy case compared to many environmental sounds recorded in nature. Test conditions for one. Poor performing audio equipment for another. This always eventually comes back to this. If you "don't" hear amp differences it's because your equipment isn't good enough. I'm in a position that I can evaluate all minds of audio equipment as it passes my test lab. I also get to hear all kinds of equipment at audio shows and a dozen times a year at audio-club meetings ay enthusiasts homes. The electronics and loudspeakers in my home system are the best measuring and the best sounding I've ever "heard." I'd guess that you'd say the same thing about your equipment; to which I'd reply that it's most likely the best you can "imagine" and if its reasonably competent most likely the best you've ever heard. The difference between you and me is that I have evidence that my rca speaker cables (yes, I use active speakers) sound exactly like any other reasonably competent cabling. And that the acoustical output from the speakes is the "most" accurate to the input signal under anechoic conditions and at the listening position as I've yet found. Yes, I use EQ. And this "snobbish attitude" is based on the fact that science (yes science) is finding that music is hardwired into the brain in ways we don't yet fully understand. But the sound at a Drag Strip isn't? That's the thing that bothers me. We've always had thunderstorms and soft rain..... well before anybody 'hardwired' our brains to music. One of the things apparently that makes us uniquely human. I'm not sure radial plane engines hold the same place of honor, although I do agree they make a demanding test. A demanding test for audio systems that is at low frequencies much more challenging than any music other than those already specified. IMO if a low frequency speaker system can do justice to "Round Sounds" (Aircraft Music) it can handle any other source with no sweat no matter what the program type. Not that there's anything wrong with recorded music as a source but, by and large, acoustically its not that challenging compared to basshead cds, loons on the lake, radial engined aircraft, many cinema soundtracks, steam locomotives and space craft lift-offnot to mention test signals. Sure its the most common source used (even if you count bluegrass as music and not concentrated boredom) but in terms of acoustical playback timbral and dynamics challenge its not the most difficult challenge to any given playback system. Call to higher authority notwithstanding. Well, to tell you the truth, Tom I also have used natural sounds (particularly the Crown SASS P demo disk) to test things...but funny thing is, I evaluate them the same way as I do music...do they sound "right", do they sound "real". And I can tell you some components do, and some don't. Sure; and so what? That's what I do. But I also need a reference. I've never been on the tarmac when a radial engined aircraft was running. But I have been at the station when a locomotive or a jet aircraft has been approaching or leaving. I've also been the sole party in a small vessell (canoe) when loons were calling at dusk. Accordingly, I postulate that if quick-switch a-b testing without focus (in other words, without knowing *what* we are listening for), the brain gets confused. What would anybody listen-for except those orthogonal sound quality categories? And how would one fail to hear them with a shortened clip? Do they disappear on everything except full-length classicall music? Strawmen marching in a row. Did I say anything about classical music? Did I say anything about classical music? And on a shortened clip, you have not established any context. The ear-brain, hearing a whole piece of music absorbs the pattern...the reflections, ambience, apparent depth and placement, the weight of timbre in that environment, etc. This establishes a context for determining, say, if the bass sounds "right". Using your word ....Hogwash. If you are familiar with the whole piece there is plenty of "context". Even when you aren't an organ recording placed in a cathedral that's self-evident when listening Then one can zero in on the bass. Just zeroing in on the bass by itself provides no context. Again ... your word.... rhetorical hogwash. If you've heard the recording before you already "know" the environment. It's not like one would choose recordings that one would not already auditioned before. Your line of argument seems to think that other people hadn't already thought of your line of reasoning. In my opinion, what gets 'confused' in bais-controlled listening tests is the subject who has convinced himself that psychosomatic "differences" have an acoustical cause because the answer is withheld before the decision is made. Gosh we never would have guessed your opinion without that explanation! :-) The music is in another class altogether. For example I'm listening to the WEMU Sunday Blues radio shows, as I type, and the recent tunes (Lou Ann Barton "Maybe" and Irma Thomas ("It's Raining written by Naomi Neville) are spectcalar on my M-Audio 24/96 and Monsoon speaker system. The "music" is great but the songs would sound less impressive on my main system because the music is great but the production is a function of its time and location. I wouldn't know. I listen to FM over two very good systems and a set of very good headphones, so sound limitations never intrude..it simply isn't an issue. So your line is just "dismissal." I have 2 sets of high quality headphones but I choose not to use them for radio because the tiny artifacts are annoying. But thank you for making my point ....it's the "music" and not the production or the playback system that's the most important factor. As opposed to environmental sound where 'realism' is the main quality definer. Normally, audiophiles listen open-ended (remember we are supposed to be having this discussion in the context of open-ended comparison of components ability to play music) and then hone in to do a comparison on one simple artifact *after* they have identified (e.g. "I think amp A has more rounded and dynamic bass"). The "conditions" and context are your own Mr Lavo. The typical a/b/x context is one of identification. But even so; why are we required to limit ourselves to your gross conditions when there are more specific and detailed methods for specifying subtle sonic differences? Because dozens of subjectivists on this forum over the years have tried to tell you the same thing in their own way...only to be dismissed out of hand as you try to do with my arguments. Actually I've never "dismissed out of hand" any of your arguments. Indeed I've thought of all of them that have a possible acoustical or perceptual effect well before you invented your obfuscatory comparative/evaluative theory. With nothing but your own beliefs in opposition....and tests flawed for the purpose that you refuse to validate but promote heartily. So exactly when are you going to provide any rational evidence that open-ended listening has any relevance to acoustical sound quality? I refuse to "validate" nothing. I validate everything I do. Indeed my refusal to accept open-ended evaluation when even inadvertant bias controls showed it to be wrong led me to this point. I been an ardent shepard chasing amp/wire/tweak sound at my own expense. And I've not found a single individual that could demonstrate an ability to "hear" any of the above under any circumstance when even the most modest of bias controls were implemented ( opague cloth draped over I/O terminals.) So exactly when will you be able to validate your "beliefs"? Then they A-B listening to that one single thing. After reconciling that, they listen open ended again. They hear something else. So do they listen to the whole piece for every "something else"? So in the "evaluation" mode one has to listen to one particular sonic category on each pass? How many categories do you have? Does one have to listen all the way through every selection to form an answer? I'm hoping that you choose shorter pieces then. Elsewise one might spend several days to find even a substandered piece of equipment. Are you deliberately being provacative, or is it you just don't listen or grasp? I "grasp" everything and I "listen" to everything. You are being provoacative. Open ended listening is just that...the music and its sonic reproduction presents itself to you without foreplan...then you hear things...things that may or may not sound "right"...then you investigate...then your return to open-ended until/unless something else "presents itself". With a new component, you have no way of knowing going in what is going to present itself. That is the purpose of home trial of a new component in your own system. And when you are finished, you have a pretty good idea of the units sonic strengths and weakness in an absolute sense, in your system, playing the music you enjoy. And you decide if it is an improvement over what you had before, and if so, whether it is worth the money to make the change. If not, you keep looking, or you retire back to what you had and be happy. Ohhhh; yes we listen to everyting ....but we do not need many long repeats of music to figure out what's wrong and what's not. Steely strings are immediately apparent. Diminshed envelopment only requires a suitable recording. Stuffy or nasal female vocals need only a proper recording. Uneven bass only need a single recording. Inermodulation distortion needs only 1 or 2 recording segments to discover. With a focused method and a set of program segments that highlight performance errors one simply does NOT need to LISTEN to every product for extended periods to make good decisions. And for products that have no sonic impact (amps, wires, tweaks, accessories) one has no need to "listen" to anything. They zero in on that. So what else is there to "hear" if one can't identify once source from the other? Perhaps we've covered this already. That is how a-b testing should be used and is of value. That is how Harmon uses it when they train listeners to listen for certain artifacts. BTW that's Harman. How long is their test? How long are the segments? Ask Steven, not me. But they do train to hear specific things and to evaluate on those things. YOU brought it up. Answer the question. It is *very* different than having somebody listen to two components playing music not having any idea how to place what they hear quickly into some context, or even what to listen for, before they have to listen to the other piece of equipment. Rhetorical hogwash; many blind tests have used equipment well-known to the subjects. For example Zipser challenged people to come to his store where HE would SHOW that he was able to easily identify amplifiers (19 of 20) under bias controlled conditions. He was unable to do that under the most moderate of bias controls. An opague cloth was placed over the amp ouput terminals. This was in his reference system, mind you. Help me here. Don't you have a set of recordings (including challenging segments) that you think provide specific acoustical challenges to audio equipment? I do and I have those pieces and those segments which highlight 'differences' all congregated on a single CD-R so I can use the same material for every evaluation and in the same 1st repeat order. It also enables me to repeat segments with certain challenges as many times as necssary to gain a firm grasp on the level of competence. I don't plan "challenges". I have typical music of the type I regularly enjoy, and I listen to it. I have enough of it that I don't always have to use the same music. With extended, evaluative listening you are able to establish the context from the music itself. So you only accidentally use the same recordings for evaluation? If the substitute improves or deteriorates the sense of "rightness" that I have already in the system, then I try to investigate what and how and why that is happening. So with "recordings" what is "right" and what is not? I thought you had a set of sound quality categories that you rated on a numerical scale? And if they are normally pretty astute listeners, this inability to hear and make sense of *anything* creates anxiety and it becomes a self completing circle. But it doesn't mean that there aren't differences. It means it is the wrong test for that purpose, or perhaps more accurately, an okay test used for the wrong purpose. Oh sure "anxiety" is the root of all evil. You know if "anxiety" were the "cause" of the high-end community failure to produce even the smallest quantity of evidence for amp/wire sound they might not have to "argue" and "debate" so hard and use anxiety as the main excuse. And so another dismissal. Why not instead try to fathom what lies behind the argument, and hold your own biases at bay for awhile. The conditions of Blind and Double Blind have prevented me from influencing results based on my personal bias. Why don't you try to confirm your beliefs under bias controlled conditions? |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Nousaine wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote: "Nousaine" "Harry Lavo" ...many snips.....This is the only newsgroup I've seen which allows this sort of behavior. All of the objectivist-debaters seem to hang out here to reinforce each other. Even though we all know you're right, Harry, you can never win the debate here under these conditions. Regards, Harry doesn't need to win any debate. What he, and you, should do is supply some evidence that amps and wires contribute anything to sound reproduction that is not dependent upon the internal bias of any individual "listener." It's rather ironic for Mr. Kuller to huff about 'this sort of behavior', referring to sccientifically-minded people 'reinforcing' each other, and then to immediately refer to a subjectivist 'we', who 'all know' Harry is right. I don't think Mr. Kuller realizes what he's writing. Anyone is allowed to 'reinforce' anyone here...as it should be. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability to "hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions ( loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or another? Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own. I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though. Maybe you missed this.... Stewart said "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." I said "Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who have already made up thier minds about things." No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did believe those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case quite inferior to less expensive equipment. I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit they own 'isn't really all that good'. Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over his turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus. I have seen them say they own such devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2) their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of these, it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without it being a contradiction. Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in some part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I didn't say it was wrong. As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question it in others. Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio products for the sake of argument. I have never purchased or owned any piece of equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad I have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his own." So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set of listeners under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be judged as "insufficiently experienced". One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences. Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables. I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation test' of DBT is in the works, then? What is there to critique? Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per his ideas? I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals. I assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any real investigation. It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that needlessly introduce multiple varaibles. Yes? No? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#397
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability to "hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions ( loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or another? Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own. I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though. Maybe you missed this.... Nope. Stewart said "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." I said "Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who have already made up thier minds about things." No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did believe those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case quite inferior to less expensive equipment. Two out of those three components are speakers and turntables -- which no one argues are likely to sound the same. The other is a Krell , ownership of which Stewart has explained many, if not dozens of times. I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit they own 'isn't really all that good'. (And this includes Stewart.) Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over his turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus. Indeed. But not everything is out on CD, is it? And not every CD is well mastered, is it? I myself keep a Systemdek II TT around for doing LP-to-CDR transfers. IIRC I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 for it, back in the early 80's -- a considerable sum for me at the time. For all I know, Stewart keeps 'legacy' devices around as well, for specialized use. I have seen them say they own such devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2) their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of these, it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without it being a contradiction. Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in some part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I didn't say it was wrong. Stewart's reason is covered by #4. As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question it in others. Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio products for the sake of argument. That much is clear. My question is, will you understand if it's explained to you? I have never purchased or owned any piece of equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad I have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his own." Noted. I can think of several reasons why someone might do so. But feel free to move on...unless you prefer to argue. So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set of listeners under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be judged as "insufficiently experienced". One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences. Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables. I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation test' of DBT is in the works, then? What is there to critique? The protocol. Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per his ideas? "We're" waiting for its proponents to do just that. I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals. Ah. I assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any real investigation. That looks to be exactly what they were designed to be. It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that needlessly introduce multiple variables. Yes? No? Indeed. Which *needless multiple variables* were *you* thinking of? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 4/28/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Steven Sullivan Date: 4/27/2004 11:42 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 1Qxjc.52349$_L6.4139753@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) This follows the absolute polarity thread. No one has ever shown an ability to "hear" absolute polarity under normally reverberant playback conditions ( loudspeaker in a room.) So exactly why would any enthusiast care on eway or another? Motivations are personal in nature. I wonder why some one would purchase High end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good. I see that as a waste of money or a commitment to arguing. To each his own. I'd wonder about that too. I haven't seen anyone do it here, though. Maybe you missed this.... Nope. Stewart said "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." I said "Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who have already made up thier minds about things." No answer was ever given. Now it is entirely possible that Stewart did believe those components were sonically superior when he bought them and decided to keep them even after concluding there were not superior and in one case quite inferior to less expensive equipment. Two out of those three components are speakers and turntables -- which no one argues are likely to sound the same. So? Who said anything about sounding the same or not? I said "I wonder why someone would purchase high end equipment only to argue that it isn't really all that good." The other is a Krell , ownership of which Stewart has explained many, if not dozens of times. Yes and one of his explinations for keeping was clearly "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." I haven't seen anyone who owns 'high end ' equipment say that taht the unit they own 'isn't really all that good'. (And this includes Stewart.) Stewart has many times commented on the superiority of any CD player over his turntable rig which retails for a few thousand dollars plus. Indeed. But not everything is out on CD, is it? And not every CD is well mastered, is it? Indeed it isn't and yet Stewart has proclaimed CD superiority ove rhis high end table for the vast majority of titles. So he does argue that this expensive piece of equipment is quite inferior to equipment that can be had for a fraction of the price. Lets not forget what else he said about owning his turntable. "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." I myself keep a Systemdek II TT around for doing LP-to-CDR transfers. IIRC I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 for it, back in the early 80's -- a considerable sum for me at the time. For all I know, Stewart keeps 'legacy' devices around as well, for specialized use. Well he says one of the reason he keeps it around is "To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman." We know by his own words that is at least one reason. You can speculate about other reasons if you wish. I have seen them say they own such devices because 1) they got a good deal on them 2) their system has special requirements 3) they wanted certain features such as connectibility, DSPs , etc., that the particular brand had, or 4) they routinely do comparisons in a professional or hobbyist capacity and need to have a variety of units on hand. Note that for any of these, it is quite possible to also maintain that amps, cables, transports etc running within their design spec will likely sound the same, without it being a contradiction. Stewarts comments seem pretty clear to me. He keeps some of his stuff in some part for the sake of the argument. Like I said, I don't understand that. I didn't say it was wrong. Stewart's reason is covered by #4. Unfortunately his words say otherwise. As for 'committment to arguing' I wonder how one suhc as yourself who gives all the signs of having that very quality, presumes to question it in others. Maybe you should reread what I said. I have no problem with people who are committed to arguing. I don't understand the investment in high end audio products for the sake of argument. That much is clear. My question is, will you understand if it's explained to you? Maybe. Please explain why someone would invest so much money in equipment just to argue that it really isn't all that good. I have never purchased or owned any piece of equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits so I am clearly not questioning something in others that I do myself. By the way, I never siad I have a problem with buying and owning equipment for the sake of arguing against it's merits, I simply said I don't understand it. I did say "to each his own." Noted. I can think of several reasons why someone might do so. But feel free to move on...unless you prefer to argue. Argue about what? If you want to deny Stewart's motivation fine. The record is clear to me. I suppose we could ask him again if that is why he owns the Krell and the Gyrodeck. But expressing the fact that I don't understand the motivation is not an argument. So I am not sure what you are talking about here. So sure. Your "listeners" are the limitation. You can guarantee that any set of listeners under any set of conditions where the desired result isn't obtained will be judged as "insufficiently experienced". One could be scientific about things and actually measure the listeners and the equipment and the test protocols for sensitivity to known subtle differences. Not to do so makes for sloppy, unscientific tests with multiple variables. I presume your critique of Harry's multi-variable 'evaluative validation test' of DBT is in the works, then? What is there to critique? The protocol. I suppose I could take a look at it and offer a critique but wouldn't it be redundant? Has it not already been critiqued? Is someone actually going to conduct tests as per his ideas? "We're" waiting for its proponents to do just that. I must confess, I haven't payed any attention to his proposals. Ah. I assumed they were an exercise of hypatheticals that would never see any real investigation. That looks to be exactly what they were designed to be. Not much point in examining a test that will never be conducted. It seems that maybe you do see a problem with tests that needlessly introduce multiple variables. Yes? No? Indeed. Which *needless multiple variables* were *you* thinking of? -- Listener sensitivity, equipment sensitivty and protocol sensitivity. No reason not to eliminate them as potential problems. -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"So, if something is good enough to allow the differences to be heard,
you don't want to know? Besides, I listen to music through those headphones, and if one product does a better job, I want to know! And certainly not everything will be masked. It is helpful to listen through the Stax first, and then listen on the loudspeakers after the differences are isolated." Using one's choice of gear is no problem when testing reports of being an exception to the benchmark of no difference in wire and amps using listening alone. We can then test if the "differences" reported as perceptions are a product of the perception process or inherent in the amp and/orwire. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 27 Apr 2004 23:22:42 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote: Actually, I've had three car crashes withing 50 yards of my living room over the years. So my analagy isn't so far fetched, is it? :-) Sure it is. When was the last time you heard a car crash in your room or where you were in the direct acoustic field? We've ALL heard car crashes from an acoustically distant perspective. "The schreeching tires, the bustin' glass the woeful cries that I heard last ...oh where oh where could my baby be...?" Bu tif my listening room were within 50 yards of where woulld be likely to occur ...I'd move.... most likely because the ambient noise level would be too high for anything but a sound-resistent construction. The latter is unacceptable to me because it costs too much and it tends to accentuate room mode peaks. It depends. My listening room is within 20 yards of a crossroads on the main Nottingham to Loughborough road, and there have been many serious crashes over the 14 years we've lived here - but OTOH I have 13" thick brick/block walls, a concrete slab floor and triple glazing on that room, giving a typical noise floor well below 30dBA. Since the room is well dimensioned, I find that bass is the most solid I've ever experienced, but not at all boomy. Large planar dipoles do help in this regard of course, since the large quasi-line source (with large variation in the distance to rear wall across the panel in my case) spreads the resonances quite effectively. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hearing aids and music | High End Audio | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |