Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message The experimentation could be started without resolving the larger question. This is a basic ploy of the objectivists---to try to prevent the investigation necessary to precisely define and empiricize this model, on the grounds that it hasn't yet been precisely defined and empiricized! Oh come now, this is utterly ludicrous! Experimentation starts when there's a *reason* to start - i.e. an observation that is repeatable, and contravenes existing theory. You don't have any such data do you? Also, it is *your* contention that there are these *types of listening* that have a huge affect on audio perception, and you now pretend that you can construct a valid audio test without even knowing what the term means. And, as has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, you are free to experiment any time you like, and post any repeatable observations you obtain. So have at it... The evidence in this case, Keith, is in the social psychology. In *your* interpretation of it, yes. Your view is not universally accepted, as you know. Many audiophiles simply, intuitively feel that short-snippet, quick-switch testing destroys the context in which they normally listen to music and makes judgments, especially the comparative test known as ABX. OK, Harry, if you've conducted as much preference testing as you imply, how often have you found that peoples' intuitive feel about their discrimination ability is wrong? From all data I've seen, that would be 'very' frequently. If you want hard evidence, just count up the number of posters who have voiced this opinion on UseNet over the last 25 years. Oh come now, Harry, a small number of subjectivists (a similar number to objectivsts BTW) posting countless anectdotal acounts based on sighted listening is *not* "hard evidence", for the myriad reasons discussed here by the 'opposition' over those same 25 years. You may think it can be explained away as sighted bias, and perhaps it can be. In my personnal experience, it can, and it has been. But not by insisting on using the same test as is raising the objections in the first place, because that test simply doesn't deal with the variable raised....which is an approximation of a normal listening environment/state (relaxed, evaluative rather than focused, comparative). Harry, no one is insisting you use ABX, as you well know. You can use *any* form of blind, controlled, testing. If, however, you have a problem with blind testing, in any form, then you will never agree with any research produced via blind protocol, and you will clearly never find any common ground with either the objectivists here, or with audio researchers in general. But you did not address the underlying basis for the statement, above, that you took issue with. To wit, one cannot create a test variable simply by fiat. That is what Mr. Morrissey is attempting to do with his "types of listening" construct. The whole point is, as long as that abstract construct remains undefined (and indeed, as we have seen, both fluid and adjustable at will as well), methodology to control for it simply cannot be identified and implemented. Can you possibly disagree with that? (Note: this does not mean that you could not gather a sufficiently large base of data such that evaluation of apparent aberrations or perturbations in the data might indicate the presence of an uncontrolled variable [types of listening, for eg.], unanticipated interactions of variables, or of unidentified confounding affects - but that's simply a brute force way of avoiding proper test design). That being the case, this whole "types of listening" construct appears to be simply another way of denying extant data, and of dodging any form of 'acceptable testing', as it makes testing either impossible, or so impossibly cumbersome (i.e. requiring *vast* amounts of data) as to make implementation infeasible. Let me ask you, Harry, how would your 'monadic' test, that you feel is the proper methodology, control for this "variable"? How would you test under *all* different "types of listening"? Bear in mind, its *my* interpretation of "types of listening" that matters in *my* acceptance of the data, but I will not define the term for you, nor will I gaurantee to hold its definition constant throughout the test. Surely you see how utterly futile this whole path is, do you not? Keith Hughes |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Keith Hughes" wrote in message snip, ground we've been over countless times before Let me ask you, Harry, how would your 'monadic' test, that you feel is the proper methodology, control for this "variable"? How would you test under *all* different "types of listening"? Bear in mind, its *my* interpretation of "types of listening" that matters in *my* acceptance of the data, but I will not define the term for you, nor will I gaurantee to hold its definition constant throughout the test. Surely you see how utterly futile this whole path is, do you not? I don't buy your "infinitely variable" construct. Seems pretty clear to me that Michael/Mark have been talking about relaxed, evaluative listening of the kind audiophiles normally do, allowing differences to enter consciousness without being beckoned and without the need for "definition". Or even to remain unconscious and reveal themselves in the ratings. The monadic control test I proposed was designed to be done under conditions as much like that as possible in a research setting...obviously some choices would have to be made about music, etc. to attempt to illustrate the suspected differences in the DUT's, and even the most relaxed test environment is not going to be exactly like conditions at home. But it would come a lot closer than an ABX test or an AB test. The best proposal I know of was suggested by a poster on RAP a while ago. You may have read it there as well Keith. And that was for a computerized box that switched between two DUT's at home on a nightly basis and recorded the setup, but meanwhile the listener would not know which was operative in the sytem...but would simply fill out a rating form at the end of each listening session. And at the end of the test (say after 200 listening sessions), the device would cough up the active component list so it could be date-matched against the ratings and statistical analysis undertaken. Obviously this could only be done eaily for passive components...turntables, cd players, and even tuners where the user provided active input could not be tested this way, nor could speakers. It would be a nice piece of theoretical research if done by say 100 different listeners, each evaluating the DUT's this way. However, this validation would only be really useful as research. I don't know of any practical way for this to be of value to a user wishing to replace components commercially....they simply wouldn't have them long enough, unless they bought both and sold eventually and were willing to wait for a year to make the final decision. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 25 Oct 2005 04:10:49 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them. So how do these sound relative to a pair of Quads? Both have the 'airiness' common to large planar dipoles, similar midrange clarity, but the Duettas have deeper and much more powerful bass combined with a beautifully sweet treble, an area where I find the somewhat 'beamy' Quads to be lacking. However, the Quad remains an absolute classic, and might even be argued to have a cleaner midrange - although that has to be *very* marginal. I've had Quads, but not in the same timeframe as the Duettas (I went from Quads to Yamaha NS1000Ms and Maggie 1Cs before the Duettas). Looks to be local pair for a good price. http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ull&1134836634 Even now, with the mighty B&W 800D and the like having brought true transparency to dynamic speakers, I find that large dipoles simply seem to sound more natural, and the Duettas have a way of disappearing which is still extremely rare - you really do listen *through* them, rather than *to* them. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message ... Let me ask you, Harry, how would your 'monadic' test, that you feel is the proper methodology, control for this "variable"? How would you test under *all* different "types of listening"? Bear in mind, its *my* interpretation of "types of listening" that matters in *my* acceptance of the data, but I will not define the term for you, nor will I gaurantee to hold its definition constant throughout the test. Surely you see how utterly futile this whole path is, do you not? I don't buy your "infinitely variable" construct. Well, how can it be finite if one does not define it? Seems pretty clear to me that Michael/Mark have been talking about relaxed, evaluative listening of the kind audiophiles normally do, allowing differences to enter consciousness without being beckoned and without the need for "definition". It may be "clear" to you, but I suggest that you are in error. The "definition" of which I speak is not related to defining a quality *of* the perception, as you seem to imply above, but merely the definition for a variable that is being purported to have a major affect *on* the perception. Your interpretation is also belied by Michael's' own descriptions. For example, Michael talks about " 'directed' versus 'broad' focus" - which one relates to *your* definition of "relaxed, evaluative listening of the kind audiophiles normally do", and how can you tell? How can you tell that my "relaxed" isn't 'directed', while yours is 'broad'? How could you control for either. Or how about another Michael-ism, that listening can be "either free-floating or directed"; is 'free-floating' the same as 'broad'? If not, how do they differ? How can you tell? How can you tell if participant A's 'free-floating' is the same as, or different than, participant B's 'directed'? Clearly, lacking a functional definition, none of these questions can be answered. This is not a matter of disagreement over expected results, or methodology. This is a simple matter of the human inability to control conditions that are not defined, or that change based on differing interpretations between experimenters or subjects. This spills over into the results phase of any monadic or preference testing as well, as the terms used for evaluation must be clearly defined, for the test subjects, or the reporting will not be accurate. This is a basic prerequisite of communication - common definition of terms - that simply cannot be ignored if the data obtained is to have any meaning. Or even to remain unconscious and reveal themselves in the ratings. The monadic control test I proposed was designed to be done under conditions as much like that as possible in a research setting...obviously some choices would have to be made about music, etc. to attempt to illustrate the suspected differences in the DUT's, and even the most relaxed test environment is not going to be exactly like conditions at home. But it would come a lot closer than an ABX test or an AB test. I don't know about that, the SBT's I've done were AB, at home. Pretty much my normal environment. The best proposal I know of was suggested by a poster on RAP a while ago. You may have read it there as well Keith. Sorry, I don't frequent that group. And that was for a computerized box that switched between two DUT's at home on a nightly basis and recorded the setup, but meanwhile the listener would not know which was operative in the sytem...but would simply fill out a rating form at the end of each listening session. And at the end of the test (say after 200 listening sessions), the device would cough up the active component list so it could be date-matched against the ratings and statistical analysis undertaken. Not a bad approach, however, the caution would still be in the descriptive terms used. Once again, if the 'definition' of the individuals terms were not fairly narrow, the data could well result in a null response when differences did exist. For example, if one considered a wide range of parameters as part of "soundstaging", two items sounding clearly different could rate equally. And, of course, extrapolation to, or correlation with, other subjects would be impossible without a clear understanding of the terminology used. Obviously this could only be done eaily for passive components...turntables, cd players, and even tuners where the user provided active input could not be tested this way, nor could speakers. Actually, remote controlled preamps could be done this way, as could external DAC's, power amplifiers, phono amps, etc. It would be a nice piece of theoretical research if done by say 100 different listeners, each evaluating the DUT's this way. Controlled correctly, yes, it could prove interesting. However, this validation would only be really useful as research. I don't know of any practical way for this to be of value to a user wishing to replace components commercially....they simply wouldn't have them long enough, unless they bought both and sold eventually and were willing to wait for a year to make the final decision. I disagree. If the research showed that no one could not distinguish between cables, or s/s amps, for e.g., that would provide valuable information to consider when purchasing. Certainly it would be infeasible to execute *as a purchasing comparison* test. As I have always said, I do not (nor do most objectivists IME) recommend AB or ABX testing as a means of making purchasing decisions. Knowing the results of generic cable/amp/preamp tests is, however, useful. Keith Hughes |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
ScottW wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them. So how do these sound relative to a pair of Quads? I suspect you mean the 63s. They are both excellent speakers. The Duettas have two obvious advantages over the Quads. they go deeper which pretty much makes them superior from about 50hz down and they are more dynamic. OTOH the Quads are far more transparent from the mid bass on up and more neutral. IMO the Quads are a little bit on the sweet side say compared to the Sound Labs or Martin Logan CLS IIz but just barely. The Duetta signatures though are very much on the sweet side to the point of putting a certain sameness on all that passes through them. It can be seductive at first but ininvolving in the long run. Overall I'd take the Quads. I would like to make it clear though that they are both excellent speakers. the sonic signature of the Duettas while large compared to the Quads and oher excellent speakers is quite small compared to the vast majority of cone speakers an ers in an easily forgivable way. Looks to be local pair for a good price. http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ull&1134836634 I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Scott |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 26 Oct 2005 04:03:26 GMT, wrote:
ScottW wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them. So how do these sound relative to a pair of Quads? I suspect you mean the 63s. They are both excellent speakers. The Duettas have two obvious advantages over the Quads. they go deeper which pretty much makes them superior from about 50hz down and they are more dynamic. True. OTOH the Quads are far more transparent from the mid bass on up and more neutral. Untrue. As you already noted, '63s lack a bass foundation for their music, and they have distinctly beamy treble. Having extensive experience of both speakers, I can say that the transparency issue is marginal, and I suspect that, as with Linn speakers of old, some of that perceived transparency in the Quad is due to the lack of bass - largely overcome in the 989, to be fair. None of this is meant as any criticism, merely an attempt to restore balance to a ludicrously extreme statement by Porky. IMO the Quads are a little bit on the sweet side say compared to the Sound Labs or Martin Logan CLS IIz but just barely. The Duetta signatures though are very much on the sweet side to the point of putting a certain sameness on all that passes through them. Utter rubbish - they merely lack the clinical coldness of most modern dynamic speakers. They are certainly on the warm side of neutral, but you are, as ever, over-egging the pudding. Put a nasty screechy violin recording through the Duettas, you hear a nasty screechy violin - just as you do on the Quads. I don't find the Quads at all warm, which is where the 'neutral' balance of our tastes may differ. It can be seductive at first but ininvolving in the long run. Overall I'd take the Quads. Clearly, having owned both, my opinion is the reverse. I'd be hard pushed to choose between the Duettas and the 989 however, and I've had both in my current listening room. The Quads can't be used against the wall, of course......... :-) I would like to make it clear though that they are both excellent speakers. the sonic signature of the Duettas while large compared to the Quads and oher excellent speakers is quite small compared to the vast majority of cone speakers an ers in an easily forgivable way. OK, we can certainly agree on that point. Looks to be local pair for a good price. http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ull&1134836634 I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Regrettably, any speaker which has *really* good phase coherency and imaging is of necessity somewhat like a giant pair of headphones, and only works on the exact bisector. Move your head an inch to the left or right, and that 'snap' focus blurs. Agreed that once you've heard really good planars, I know of no one who has returned to boxes. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
wrote:
ScottW wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 22 Oct 2005 17:27:01 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2005 02:56:38 GMT, wrote: I consider my expensive equipment to be very good value, weird. More money and inferior or equal perfomance makes for good value? Very weird. Just my opinion. Sjow me where I can purchase for less than a grand, an an=mplifier which will deliver 2x400 watts continuously into a one-ohm load. Show me speakers which will outperform my Apogee Duetta Signatures at pretty much any price, let alone the 4 grand that I paid for them. So how do these sound relative to a pair of Quads? I suspect you mean the 63s. They are both excellent speakers. The Duettas have two obvious advantages over the Quads. they go deeper which pretty much makes them superior from about 50hz down and they are more dynamic. OTOH the Quads are far more transparent from the mid bass on up and more neutral. IMO the Quads are a little bit on the sweet side say compared to the Sound Labs or Martin Logan CLS IIz but just barely. The Duetta signatures though are very much on the sweet side to the point of putting a certain sameness on all that passes through them. It can be seductive at first but ininvolving in the long run. Overall I'd take the Quads. I would like to make it clear though that they are both excellent speakers. the sonic signature of the Duettas while large compared to the Quads and oher excellent speakers is quite small compared to the vast majority of cone speakers an ers in an easily forgivable way. Looks to be local pair for a good price. http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ull&1134836634 I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Thanks Scott & Stewart both for your comments. I was comparing to 63's which I already supplement with a small sub. The wife took a look at pictures of those duettas and gagged . Doesn't like a battle worth waging. ScottW |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
On 27 Oct 2005 02:29:05 GMT, "ScottW" wrote:
wrote: I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Thanks Scott & Stewart both for your comments. I was comparing to 63's which I already supplement with a small sub. The wife took a look at pictures of those duettas and gagged . Doesn't like a battle worth waging. Duettas are occasionally available at a reasonable price. Trading up to a new wife can be *extremely* expensive! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 26 Oct 2005 04:03:26 GMT, wrote: ScottW wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... snip I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Regrettably, any speaker which has *really* good phase coherency and imaging is of necessity somewhat like a giant pair of headphones, and only works on the exact bisector. Move your head an inch to the left or right, and that 'snap' focus blurs. Agreed that once you've heard really good planars, I know of no one who has returned to boxes. Well, now you have. I gave up my Maggie II's for IMF 50's. The reason was practical...I had a young second family and the sound system had to cooexist in a family room...and I wanted to get some semblance of stereo imaging from off-axis which the box speakers did better than the Maggies. Loved the Maggies despite their lack of deep bass, and it wasn't until I heard the IMF's (remembr this was the end of the '70's) that I heard box speakers with the right combination of neutrality and musicality to lure me from the Maggies. But back to the original point...planars do not fit all situations and lifestyles and people *do* return to boxes. But planars also tend to create/maintain a very high standard for what those boxes must do. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
What is the alternative
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 Oct 2005 04:03:26 GMT, wrote: ScottW wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... snip I think there is many a good deal to be found in second hand planar speakers. They are selfish speakers in that they comand the room they live in and play only to one person but IMO there is no going back. Regrettably, any speaker which has *really* good phase coherency and imaging is of necessity somewhat like a giant pair of headphones, and only works on the exact bisector. Move your head an inch to the left or right, and that 'snap' focus blurs. Agreed that once you've heard really good planars, I know of no one who has returned to boxes. Well, now you have. I gave up my Maggie II's for IMF 50's. The reason was practical...I had a young second family and the sound system had to cooexist in a family room...and I wanted to get some semblance of stereo imaging from off-axis which the box speakers did better than the Maggies. Loved the Maggies despite their lack of deep bass, and it wasn't until I heard the IMF's (remembr this was the end of the '70's) that I heard box speakers with the right combination of neutrality and musicality to lure me from the Maggies. But back to the original point...planars do not fit all situations and lifestyles and people *do* return to boxes. But planars also tend to create/maintain a very high standard for what those boxes must do. I used the Acoustat 1+1 Medallions for close to 20years before replacing them with Von Schweikert VR4's. I loved the Acoustats and the way they sounded in my room. But moving to smaller quarters, and after hearing the VR4's, well, I sold the Acoustats. But it took years before I found something worthy of replacing them. I love the planars, but also have heard boxes that sound outstanding. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
there's not any alternative of neve 1089 or Focusrite Red 1 | Pro Audio | |||
PS2 as a DVD alternative? | Car Audio | |||
JL 10w1 help (alternative / replace) | Car Audio | |||
Monster Capacitor Alternative | Car Audio | |||
Any alternative for Windows XP user who cant use ProTools | Pro Audio |