| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:FIkcb.425450$cF.131403@rwcrnsc53... Isn't it interesting that only the people who practice bias control in the form of DBTs find that all amplifiers sound the same? Yes it certainly is interesting! Could it be that the flawed use of DBTs removes subtle audible differences and only reveals gross frequency response and loudness differences? Yes, it's definitely possible. So let's get crackin' and fix those flaws so we can detect finer differences. In the meantime, what would you suggest as an alternative? Norm Strong |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
normanstrong wrote:
Pinkerton said They (subtle audible differences) exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers If that is the case, please reference the DBTs where these subtle differences were identified. Oh, that's right - DBTs are not needed with speakers, since everyone 'knows' they all sound different - right? You can't have it both ways. Regards, Mike Well, I must admit that Mike has a good point here. If one accepts the thesis that loudspeakers differ dramatically in sound, such that DBT are a waste of time, I'd personally like to see someone waste a bit of it just to prove it. Of course; if one wanted *maximum* rigor one would do the comparison blind for speakers as well. But the *likelihood* from physical principles that speakers will be audibly different is higher than for, say, cables. How much higher? That's a good question. How many parameters can change in speakers versus cables, that can be expected to result in differences in the audible range? How much do they have to change before the difference are audible? I'd say for speakers vs. cables, the answers to those two questions are "quite a few more" and "quite a bit less". For the greatest benefit to consumers, I'd be in favor of *all* components being reviewed under blind conditions, particularly when not only *difference* is evaluated, but *audible preference* is stated as well. H-K's speaker evaluation setup appears to recognize tthis need as well. Yes, I believe that the sound of loudspeakers varies enough that it should be easy to tell which one is which. But it's a long way from a "same - different" test to actually saying something substantative about the sound of a speaker whose identity is unknown. But that's two different goals. The ENDLESS DBT DEBATE is fundamentally about audible *difference* perception, which must necessarily underly *preference* for one *sound* over another. It's silly to claim to 'prefer' the *sound* of one component over another which cannot be audibly distinguished from it. (I'm now reminded of an old Star Trek episode involving Harry Mudd and his identical twin robot girls, for some reason...) Professional audio reviewers and golden ears manage to avoid commenting on the sound of unknown speakers. I can't say that I blame them. There's always the chance that they will admire the sound of a speaker that they are on record as hating when they heard it sighted--or vice versa. I find most interesting the cleverness of the excuses they use to avoid finding themselves in that position. It's interesting too to compare the comments by reviewers in Stereophile on speakers, and then read the comments accompanying the lab measurements. -- -S. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:00:49 GMT, wrote:
Color me objectivist. I like my Spectron, just as Stewart likes has Krell; but does it *really* sound different than the Parasound? I couldn't say. Perhaps the difference is, that I took the trouble to find out? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news  ekcb.564417$YN5.398550@sccrnsc01...BTW, the *vast* majority of such artifacts as claimed in these newsgroups are simply in the heads of the listeners, and do not exist in the real physical world. For instance, I have *never*, with CD sources and solid-state amplifiers listened to under 'blind' conditions, identified any of the effects you mention, aside from tonal imbalances due to poor bass or treble response. These purple prose claims of 'dynamic contrasts', 'inner detail' etc are in my experience simply made up mythical tales, which *never* survive controlled listening conditions. You and the other objectivists have NEVER heard any of these things under "controlled listening conditions" because the faulty use of DBTs obliterates them. DBTs with audio components have ONLY shown gross frequency response and loudness differences - therefore in your world those are the only differences that must exist. You continue to make this statement in spite of the Swedish DBT on CD players (http://www.jrsaudio.se/dbtoncdplayers.htm) that I posted last week. Your claim was that since one of the players was perceived to have been brighter, the difference must have been due to "gross frequency response" variation. In point of fact, no measurements were provided to either prove or disprove your assumption. The fact of the matter is that you continue to claim that the DBT process obliterates the "subtle differences", yet the Swedish study does prove that 2 CD players were heard to be different under DBT conditions. I suspect that you're merely quibbling over semantics and drawing a fundamental conclusion based on the quibble. If someone in the Swedish test would have described a "slight hardness and grain in the treble" of one of the players, rather than having described it as being bright, would you have made the same comment vis a vis the test only uncovering "gross differences"? I suspect not. This is, I believe, the real crux of the rift between the objectivist and subjectivist crowds. The subjectivists seem to believe that the "subtle differences" are properties unto themselves, whereas the objectivist crowd understands those "subtle" differences, when they exist, to simply be the result of other basic properties (such as frequency and phase response variations, ability to drive a reactive load, etc.) I believe that this rift developed in the '70s and '80s, when manufacturers were publishing specs that had little to do with real world performance such as frequency response (invariably given as 20-20,000)THD (typyically some meaningless vanishingly low value) and RMS power (nearly universally given into a simulated 8 ohm load), and Harry Pearson (and others) were forced to develope the current "high-end language" to describe the sound of components that couldn't be described by those published specs. That thinking morphed into the false understanding that the language described properties that weren't quantifiable and measurable at all. The language implied that there was some magical, metaphysical property of a "liquid midrange." (I don't believe it was HP or JGH's intent to ever create such a misconception, by the way. They simply recognized that there were sonic properties that weren't quantifiable and measurable using the popularly published measurements of the day, and they created a language to describe those properties.) Fortunately, we now understand the fallacy of THD and RMS power ratings and have a far more sophistiated understanding of the measurable properties that make an amp transparent. As an example, if I understand the impedence curve of my speakers, be they the relatively easy load of a Vandersteen 2ce, or the extremely difficult load of a pair of Apogees, I can make an informed decision about my needs. My Paradigm Studio 100s don't require the current that Stewarts Duettas do, and accordingly, I have no need for his Krells when my Plinius 8200P delievers all the power and current my speakers need. I could, of course, put my Yamaha HT receiver on the Duettas and describe the resulting sound using the 25 year old language of "mushy and undefined bass, hardness in the treble and compressed dynamics" but it hardly seems appropriate to do so when we know full well what the result will be and why. Ironically, I believe that it is the language of 25-30 years ago (that was created to provide clarity in the face of conflicting and inadquate measurements) that creates the difficulty. As an examply, the description of a component as being bright, does not necessarily imply a gross frequency response anomoly, but it does imply some anomoly. Likewise, describing a component as posessing "remarkably grain-free and extended treble" doesn't imply perfectly flat frequency response, but it does imply a lack of peaky response. Therefore, if such a characteristic is audible with bias controls in place, it can be said to be audible. (Claiming that the bias controls destroy the "subtle difference" is only a statement that can be made if one believes that such "subtle differences" represent something other than the aggregate of several other measurable properties. In any case, such a claim is self-deceptive at best.) The Swedish test does prove that audible differences between a Denon and HK cd players exist, and there is no evidence to suggest that those differences are the result of a gross frequency response anomoly. If, of course, you'll claim that since the difference was described as being bright, therefore it must be the result of such a gross anomoly, read the preceding 3 paragraphs again. Bruce Pinkerton said They (subtle audible differences) exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers If that is the case, please reference the DBTs where these subtle differences were identified. Oh, that's right - DBTs are not needed with speakers, since everyone 'knows' they all sound different - right? You can't have it both ways. Regards, Mike |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Tom said
Isn't it interesting that only people who practice bias controlled listening tests get access to this special stuff?  I said Would you say that Stewert doesn't practice bias controled listening or maybe this claim is less than accurate? Stewart said Please note that Tom and I don't really disagree on this matter, as I have no doubt that significant measured differences would have been detected in any of the amps which did *not* sound identical in my tests. I have subsequently had in my system at least half a dozen other amps which were indistinguishable from the Krell, the most recent being the excellent Arcam A85. Tom's point is well made, that we who conduct controlled testing don't seem to have any trouble finding amps which are sonically transparent, although this appears to be a source of endless anguish for sighted listeners............ -- Your results don't seem to count for Tom. As illustrated by his comment at the top. It seems that not everything you have tested was, as Tom put it, "special." So either he is not including you in the group of people who do bias controled tests or he is not accurate in his claim about the findings of everyone who does do bias controled tests. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On 24 Sep 2003 21:09:44 GMT, "Charlie Bonitz"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" schrieb First of: You are giving good advice to newcomers, imho. If in doubt, avoid *anything* with an 'audiophile' label. You will miss out on some fine (but very overpriced) kit such as Krell and Jeff Rowland, but the upside is that other kit (Arcam, Bryston) Well, Arcam woul have been one of my personal subjectivist recomendations if asked for good sounding hifi for the money... But I would warn any friend to buy the likes of JV*, Techni*, name a few more in the same price range because I listened to them (some time ago, so they may have greatly improved in the meantime). Are those the grossly flawed (i.e. 70% of the world market) which do sound different? How come you didn´t recomend any japaneese hifi? Because a lot of it is mass-market gear of dubious ability. I have of course frequently recommended Yamaha amps, Denon tuners and Sony CD players. What is your motivation to spend so much time sitting in front of your monitor if you *know* (or deeply believe) that all that stuff sounds the same anyway? It doesn't, and you have *never* seen anyone say that it does. This is a classic subjectivist strawman argument. OTOH, many CD players, most well-designed amps, and almost all cables, *do* sound the same. Saving the world from overpriced hifi like Krell (i don´t like their sound ;-)) or Jadis (they make music come alive and breethe, imho)? Well, that just shows that you have a preference for non-neutral amplifiers. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not *high fidelity*. If good hifi by now (since when, by the way? Early 80s?) is more or less indistinguishable anyway and therefore no more progress necessary (except speakers of course), why don´t all those electronic engeneering people do some proper engeneering in vastly developing branches like car electronics or missile guiding systems? The *good* ones do, which is why there *is* continuing advance in cars and missile systems, while audio drags along a couple of decades behind the rest. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
normanstrong@ comcast.net wrote:
Well, I must admit that Mike has a good point here. If one accepts the thesis that loudspeakers differ dramatically in sound, such that DBT are a waste of time, I'd personally like to see someone waste a bit of it just to prove it. Thanks, Norm, obviously you're more consistant and open-minded than many of your objectivist colleagues. Loudspeakers do happen to exhibit the gross frequency response and loudness differences that can be reliably detected with a DBT. However, you still won't detect 'subtle audible differences' like I listed (dynamic contrasts, tonal shadings, etc.) if you use a DBT. Steven Sullivan wrote: Of course; if one wanted *maximum* rigor one would do the comparison blind for speakers as well. It's not about rigor - but consistancy. For many, doing a DBT on two amps may be too rigorous but that's besides the point. If DBTs are the only bias control method you allow to determine what 'real' audible differences between audio components are, then how do you know that what you're hearing - with loudspeakers - is not preconceptions or bias as well? You can't have it both ways. But the *likelihood* from physical principles that speakers will be audibly different is higher than for, say, cables. How much higher? That's a good question. But the wrong question. Did you hear differences (between cables or speakers) in sighted listening? Then they may be either valid or not depending on whether you require 'the DBT standard'. How can anyone (Pinkerton in specific) say the only component you hear 'subtle audible differences' with is speakers - if the listening is SIGHTED? The ENDLESS DBT DEBATE is fundamentally about audible *difference* perception, which must necessarily underly *preference* for one *sound* over another. But it's also about being able to label and describe those differences so we, as audiophiles, can discuss them. So here's the logic I'm seeing: We have all seen that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences so if you want to hear them, use sighted listening and then claim it's too hard to do DBTs with the component. Do I have it right? Regards, Mike |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Mkuller" wrote in message
... *snip* So here's the logic I'm seeing: We have all seen that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences so if you want to hear them, use sighted listening and then claim it's too hard to do DBTs with the component. Do I have it right? Regards, Mike Not exactly. First of all, we have not all "seen that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences." Here's the logic I've seen. When a "subtle difference" is discerned under a DBT, (as occurred during the Swedish test of CD players) thus invalidating the claim that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences, it is written off as being attributable to "gross frequency" anomalies. The term gross has never been defined thus allowing it be attributed to any difference that is audible under DBT conditions. Do I have it right? Bruce |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
nousaine @aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
I love those references to 'sloppy' protocols. What is more sloppy than an unlevel matched open "comparison" with no data recorded and often one of the units under test not even in the room? What's sloppier than using a strict protocol in an area it is inappropriate for, where it obscures differences, and then claiming superiority because you used a strict protocol? Could it be that sonic differences that disappear when the listener is figuratively required to close his eyes are not acoustically based and exist only in the mind of the listener? Nah; open evaluations are perfect even if they are never used in scientific inquiry when it canbe avoided. If closing his eyes was all the listener had to do, the results might be different. Unfortunately, he has to remember the subtle details of a dynamic program (music) and hold on to the memory of the subtle differences long enough to match them to another repeat of the program! The only audible memories that have been demonstrated to be large enough for this process are gross fequency and loudness differences - and then usually with pink noise, not music! DBTs have never been scientifically proven to work in comparisons of audio components - especially when music is the program. They are NO better than sighted listening - except that they err in the opposite way and give those who want to believe that everything sounds the same a pseudo-scientific basis. Regards, Mike |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
mkuller wrote:
You and the other objectivists have NEVER heard any of these things under "controlled listening conditions" because the faulty use of DBTs obliterates them. DBTs with audio components have ONLY shown gross frequency response and loudness differences - therefore in your world those are the only differences that must exist. Bruce Abrams wrote: You continue to make this statement in spite of the Swedish DBT on CD players (http://www.jrsaudio.se/dbtoncdplayers.htm) that I posted last week. Your claim was that since one of the players was perceived to have been brighter, the difference must have been due to "gross frequency response" variation. In point of fact, no measurements were provided to either prove or disprove your assumption. The fact of the matter is that you continue to claim that the DBT process obliterates the "subtle differences", yet the Swedish study does prove that 2 CD players were heard to be different under DBT conditions. I suspect that you're merely quibbling over semantics and drawing a fundamental conclusion based on the quibble. First, Bruce, thanks for your thoughtful response. The term "bright" means to me 'an overabundance of high frequencies'; i.e.a frequency response error. That it was large enough to be successfully identified in a DBT indicates to me that it is large enough to be termed "gross". The other unusual aspect of this Swedish test which made it successful (showing a positive outcome rather than a null result) was the inclusion of two (out of three) very experienced listeners, rather than ordinary audiophiles. If someone in the Swedish test would have described a "slight hardness and grain in the treble" of one of the players, rather than having described it as being bright, would you have made the same comment vis a vis the test only uncovering "gross differences"? I suspect not. This is, I believe, the real crux of the rift between the objectivist and subjectivist crowds. The subjectivists seem to believe that the "subtle differences" are properties unto themselves, whereas the objectivist crowd understands those "subtle" differences, when they exist, to simply be the result of other basic properties (such as frequency and phase response variations, ability to drive a reactive load, etc.) While I am not an engineer, I am trained in science and have no doubt that all of the properties we are able to hear in comparing audio components are related to things that can be measured. The only thing mystical is what specifically to measure to explain the particular audible phenomena in scientific terms. John Atkinson in Stereophile has been trying to correlate the observational listening results of his reviewers with measurements for some time now. Sometimes he seems to be able to correlate the two and other times he isn't. snip Harry Pearson (and others) were forced to develope the current "high-end language" to describe the sound of components that couldn't be described by those published specs. That thinking morphed into the false understanding that the language described properties that weren't quantifiable and measurable at all. The language implied that there was some magical, metaphysical property of a "liquid midrange." (I don't believe it was HP or JGH's intent to ever create such a misconception, by the way. They simply recognized that there were sonic properties that weren't quantifiable and measurable using the popularly published measurements of the day, and they created a language to describe those properties.) The language they developed was descriptive of what they heard with no attempt to correlate that to measurements. As an audiophile, I don't care about measurements, only the sound a component provides in reproducing music. Fortunately, we now understand the fallacy of THD and RMS power ratings and have a far more sophistiated understanding of the measurable properties that make an amp transparent. That still doesn't tell the whole story of amplifier sound or transparency. Few amps are so transparent that they have no sound of their own. If we knew everything about measurements and making amplifiers transparent, wouldn't they all be built the same? snip Therefore, if such a characteristic is audible with bias controls in place, it can be said to be audible. (Claiming that the bias controls destroy the "subtle difference" is only a statement that can be made if one believes that such "subtle differences" represent something other than the aggregate of several other measurable properties. Not necessarily. The observation that no DBTs have shown subtle audible differences (dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstage reproduction, tonal color, timbral accuracy, etc.) between audio components using music as a source can either be explained by 1.) those differences do not really exist in audio components, or 2.) the test being used is flawed. From my extensive observational listening as an audio equipment reviewer for over 15 years, I am convinced those subtle differences exist. From my personal experiences with DBTs, I am also convinced they are flawed. This is reinforced by the results of Greenhill's famous speaker cable DBT in Stereo Review 20 years ago. With music as the program, a level difference of 1.75db (gross) was not detectible, but with pink noise it was. It should not be surprising that subtle differences are obscured by DBTs, especially when music is used as the program and average audiophiles' results are averaged to determine the result. First these average audiophiles had to be able to identify subtle differences, say in the reproduction of viloin strings, a trumpet or in the dynamics of a performance. Then they would have to catalog that difference mentally, remember it, hold on to it - while a dynamic, ever-changing music program is playing - and then compare it to another sample of that same music. This would be a daunting task for even the most experienced listeners with great audible memory (if those individuals exist). It should be no surprise most of these DBTs yeild null results. Regards, Mike Pinkerton said They (subtle audible differences) exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:%nocb.426223$cF.132062@rwcrnsc53... normanstrong wrote: Professional audio reviewers and golden ears manage to avoid commenting on the sound of unknown speakers. I can't say that I blame them. There's always the chance that they will admire the sound of a speaker that they are on record as hating when they heard it sighted--or vice versa. I find most interesting the cleverness of the excuses they use to avoid finding themselves in that position. It's interesting too to compare the comments by reviewers in Stereophile on speakers, and then read the comments accompanying the lab measurements. Quite so. Atkinson does his best to square up the lab v. subjective listening evaluation, but it sometimes takes a bit of twisting and turning. I solve the problem by not even reading the subjective review. :-) Norm Strong |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
normanstrong@ comcast.net wrote: Well, I must admit that Mike has a good point here. If one accepts the thesis that loudspeakers differ dramatically in sound, such that DBT are a waste of time, I'd personally like to see someone waste a bit of it just to prove it. Thanks, Norm, obviously you're more consistant and open-minded than many of your objectivist colleagues. Loudspeakers do happen to exhibit the gross frequency response and loudness differences that can be reliably detected with a DBT. However, you still won't detect 'subtle audible differences' like I listed (dynamic contrasts, tonal shadings, etc.) if you use a DBT. Steven Sullivan wrote: Of course; if one wanted *maximum* rigor one would do the comparison blind for speakers as well. It's not about rigor - but consistancy. For many, doing a DBT on two amps may be too rigorous but that's besides the point. If DBTs are the only bias control method you allow to determine what 'real' audible differences between audio components are, then how do you know that what you're hearing - with loudspeakers - is not preconceptions or bias as well? Because with loudspeakers, you have scientifically sound a priori reasons to believe that there there will be an audible difference. If you claim to hear a difference between two sets of speakers , it is *reasonable* to believe you have heard a difference, based on what we know about speakers and acoustics. If you wanted to confirm that rigorously, you *would* do a DBT. If you wanted to confirm a certain *type* of difference -- say an elevated treble output -- you would want to provide a measurement confirmation for maximum rigor, unless you have evidence from the design of the speakers in question, that they would be reaonably expected to produce such an output. With other classes of components such as cables and CD transports and amps, there *isn't* reason for *expecting* audible difference from such first principles, unless the components have been specifically designed to color the sound, or are being operated outside their spec, or are faulty. But the *likelihood* from physical principles that speakers will be audibly different is higher than for, say, cables. How much higher? That's a good question. But the wrong question. Did you hear differences (between cables or speakers) in sighted listening? Then they may be either valid or not depending on whether you require 'the DBT standard'. How can anyone (Pinkerton in specific) say the only component you hear 'subtle audible differences' with is speakers - if the listening is SIGHTED? Because of the physical properties of speaker systems and human hearing. This is weighed *in balance* with the known proeprties of human perception. The latter inject doubt into all sighted perceptions of audible difference. In the case of cables there is not much in the way of counterbalance; with speaker systems, there is. The ENDLESS DBT DEBATE is fundamentally about audible *difference* perception, which must necessarily underly *preference* for one *sound* over another. But it's also about being able to label and describe those differences so we, as audiophiles, can discuss them. Let's first be convinced that *audible difference* has in fact been perceived , shall we? So here's the logic I'm seeing: We have all seen that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences so if you want to hear them, No, we haven't seen that. You are being presumptuous in your language. We have seen that sighted perception tends to result in claims of audible difference. We have seen that these are not necessarily supported by results of blind testing. This is in accordance with what is known about perceptual bias. use sighted listening and then claim it's too hard to do DBTs with the component. Do I have it right? Nope. This *presumes* the existence of 'subtle audible differences' exist that are themselves undefined. Clearly audible differences HAVE been revealed in DBTs. You start from the proposition that 'subtle audible differences' exist, when for several classes of component, all you have to support that are premise are *sighted comparisons*. Do you see the problem yet? The other problem is your incessant focus on 'subtle' differences without having defined what 'subtle' means. -- -S. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
mkuller wrote: You and the other objectivists have NEVER heard any of these things under "controlled listening conditions" because the faulty use of DBTs obliterates them. DBTs with audio components have ONLY shown gross frequency response and loudness differences - therefore in your world those are the only differences that must exist. Bruce Abrams wrote: You continue to make this statement in spite of the Swedish DBT on CD players (http://www.jrsaudio.se/dbtoncdplayers.htm) that I posted last week. Your claim was that since one of the players was perceived to have been brighter, the difference must have been due to "gross frequency response" variation. In point of fact, no measurements were provided to either prove or disprove your assumption. The fact of the matter is that you continue to claim that the DBT process obliterates the "subtle differences", yet the Swedish study does prove that 2 CD players were heard to be different under DBT conditions. I suspect that you're merely quibbling over semantics and drawing a fundamental conclusion based on the quibble. First, Bruce, thanks for your thoughtful response. The term "bright" means to me 'an overabundance of high frequencies'; i.e.a frequency response error. That it was large enough to be successfully identified in a DBT indicates to me that it is large enough to be termed "gross". Well, then, would you ever refer to *any* difference revealed in DBT to be subtle',or are they all by your definition *gross*? It's really a semantics issue, an arbitrary-cutoff issue, a point-of-view issue, unless these terms are technically defined. The other unusual aspect of this Swedish test which made it successful (showing a positive outcome rather than a null result) was the inclusion of two (out of three) very experienced listeners, rather than ordinary audiophiles. Greenhill's and others' published tests have used 'experienced' listeners, often self-defined as 'audiophiles' or 'golden ears', sometimes, 'trained'. While I am not an engineer, I am trained in science and have no doubt that all of the properties we are able to hear in comparing audio components are related to things that can be measured. The only thing mystical is what specifically to measure to explain the particular audible phenomena in scientific terms. John Atkinson in Stereophile has been trying to correlate the observational listening results of his reviewers with measurements for some time now. Sometimes he seems to be able to correlate the two and other times he isn't. Then again, in some cases, it's not much of a mystery: e.g., slight loudness differences tend to be audible, and the louder of the two tends to be preferred. Hence the use of level-matching. The language they developed was descriptive of what they heard with no attempt to correlate that to measurements. As an audiophile, I don't care about measurements, only the sound a component provides in reproducing music. In that case you should be extremely concerned about *well-documented*, known-about-for-decades factors that bias perception of audible difference, and you should be highly skeptical of reports that fail to take these into account. That still doesn't tell the whole story of amplifier sound or transparency. Few amps are so transparent that they have no sound of their own. Actually few amps have ever been demonstrated to sound different. The 'widespread' difference in amp sound is an article of audiophile faith, founded mainly on repetition of the unfounded claim and little else -- an emperor's new clothes phenomenon. Where's the rationale from engineering and physical princples, and where's the data? If we knew everything about measurements and making amplifiers transparent, wouldn't they all be built the same? Is there not a point of diminishing returns? And of course, amps can sound the same but offer different features. snip Therefore, if such a characteristic is audible with bias controls in place, it can be said to be audible. (Claiming that the bias controls destroy the "subtle difference" is only a statement that can be made if one believes that such "subtle differences" represent something other than the aggregate of several other measurable properties. Not necessarily. The observation that no DBTs have shown subtle audible differences (dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstage reproduction, tonal color, timbral accuracy, etc.) indeed: "etc." Such vagueness is endemic to the hobby's more florid end. What do these *mean* in technical terms? Can you get any group of audiophiles to form a *consensus* on the 'imaging' of a CD player *independently*? between audio components using music as a source can either be explained by 1.) those differences do not really exist in audio components or 2.) the test being used is flawed. From my extensive observational listening as an audio equipment reviewer for over 15 years, I am convinced those subtle differences exist. What about observational bias? Do you simply deny the mountainous evidence for its existence? From my personal experiences with DBTs, I am also convinced they are flawed. This is reinforced by the results of Greenhill's famous speaker cable DBT in Stereo Review 20 years ago. With music as the program, a level difference of 1.75db (gross) was not detectible, but with pink noise it was. No, Mr. Kuller,, you misstate the case grossly. The 1.75 level difference was *frequency dependent*, and thus one could *expect* that it would not be equally audible with all source material. Now, please describe your *experience* with DBT. It should not be surprising that subtle differences are obscured by DBTs, especially when music is used as the program and average audiophiles' results are averaged to determine the result. It should not be surprising that subtle difference remain subtle to *any* listener, if the program material is inhererntly unsuited to revealing it. First these average audiophiles had to be able to identify subtle differences, say in the reproduction of viloin strings, a trumpet or in the dynamics of a performance. 'Average audiophiles'? Surely an oxymoron. Then they would have to catalog that difference mentally, remember it, hold on to it - while a dynamic, ever-changing music program is playing - and then compare it to another sample of that same music. This would be a daunting task for even the most experienced listeners with great audible memory (if those individuals exist). It's the same task sighted listeners have to endure. It should be no surprise most of these DBTs yeild null results. Sighted comparison should yield similarly null results, if it's that difficult, unless you propose yet another unfounded hypothesis: that sighted listening *improves* sensitivity to audible difference. The fact is it's no surprise that sighted comparisons overreport difference. Whereas the 'masking' properties of DBTs are simply speculative on the subjectivists' part, the 'reverse masking' properties of sighted comparison on perception of audible difference are quite well-documented scientifically. In conclusion, you believe that DBTs mask 'subtle differences' because you naturally want to believe in what you *think* you hear..not because there's any real evidence of 'masking'. It's just that simple. -- -S. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On 25 Sep 2003 14:38:19 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
a DBT. However, you still won't detect 'subtle audible differences' like I listed (dynamic contrasts, tonal shadings, etc.) if you use a DBT. You *definitely* won't detect them reliably and repeatably by sighted listening....... If they're really there, then decades of experience by top professionals in the field, shows that a DBT gives you the best chance of revealing them. Steven Sullivan wrote: Of course; if one wanted *maximum* rigor one would do the comparison blind for speakers as well. It's not about rigor - but consistancy. For many, doing a DBT on two amps may be too rigorous but that's besides the point. If DBTs are the only bias control method you allow to determine what 'real' audible differences between audio components are, then how do you know that what you're hearing - with loudspeakers - is not preconceptions or bias as well? You can't have it both ways. Simple really. You do DBTs on several speakers, you score 100% every time, you don't waste any more time doing DBTs on speakers........... How can anyone (Pinkerton in specific) say the only component you hear 'subtle audible differences' with is speakers - if the listening is SIGHTED? Typical distortion from Mike, in lieu of a substantive argument. I have *never* said that differences among speakers are at all subtle. So here's the logic I'm seeing: We have all seen that DBTs obscure subtle audible differences so if you want to hear them, use sighted listening and then claim it's too hard to do DBTs with the component. Do I have it right? No, you are simply making up a story to suit your prejudices. You have ofered *zero* evidence that subtle sonic differences can be *reliably and repeatably* identified by sighted listening. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
nousaine @aol.com (Nousaine) wrote: I love those references to 'sloppy' protocols. What is more sloppy than an unlevel matched open "comparison" with no data recorded and often one of the units under test not even in the room? What's sloppier than using a strict protocol in an area it is inappropriate for, not inappropriate for validating audible difference..in fact it's considered the *most* appropriate by those who *msut* do just that. where it obscures differences, Differences claimed from intrinsically flawed sighed comparisons...and thus quite possibly not differences at all. In that case, there needs to be another means of validation. DBT is such a means, and the standard for those who must validate audible difference. If DBTs never yielded positive results for difference, they wouldn't be used by ANYBODY. and then claiming superiority because you used a strict protocol? Stricter protocols tend to yield more reliable results. Sighted protocls are at the bottom end of the strictness scale, and are utterly inadequate for reasonably inferring existence of audible difference for some classes of components. Could it be that sonic differences that disappear when the listener is figuratively required to close his eyes are not acoustically based and exist only in the mind of the listener? Nah; open evaluations are perfect even if they are never used in scientific inquiry when it canbe avoided. If closing his eyes was all the listener had to do, the results might be different. Unfortunately, he has to remember the subtle details of a dynamic program (music) and hold on to the memory of the subtle differences long enough to match them to another repeat of the program! Which is also required of any 'sighted' protocol. The only audible memories that have been demonstrated to be large enough for this process are gross frequency and loudness differences - and then usually with pink noise, not music! The only audible memories that have been demonstrated to be 'large enough' for sighted comparison are grosser still -- it's the reason you can reliably tell a violin from a tube, for example. DBTs have never been scientifically proven to work in comparisons of audio components - especially when music is the program. What's so special about audio components? (Btw, those articles in AES that appear to use audio components...and the fact taht some audio component manufacterers use DBT protocols in their product development..suggest again that you're wrong.) They are NO better than sighted listening - except that they err in the opposite way and give those who want to believe that everything sounds the same a pseudo-scientific basis. Often asserted, never demonstrated. -- -S. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Golden ears? was THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Greenhill's and others' published tests have used 'experienced' listeners, often self-defined as 'audiophiles' or 'golden ears', sometimes, 'trained'. I have never, ever heard any audiophile describe himself as a "golden-ear." Rather, the term "golden ears" is a condescending, denigrating label that is applied by self-described "objectivists." In truth, every subjectivist audiophile I've ever known thought that almost anyone could hear what they were hearing... if only they took the time and effort to try. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Mkuller" wrote in message news:S5Gcb.338548
*snip* Bruce Abrams wrote: You continue to make this statement in spite of the Swedish DBT on CD players (http://www.jrsaudio.se/dbtoncdplayers.htm) that I posted last week. Your claim was that since one of the players was perceived to have been brighter, the difference must have been due to "gross frequency response" variation. In point of fact, no measurements were provided to either prove or disprove your assumption. The fact of the matter is that you continue to claim that the DBT process obliterates the "subtle differences", yet the Swedish study does prove that 2 CD players were heard to be different under DBT conditions. I suspect that you're merely quibbling over semantics and drawing a fundamental conclusion based on the quibble. First, Bruce, thanks for your thoughtful response. The term "bright" means to me 'an overabundance of high frequencies'; i.e.a frequency response error. That it was large enough to be successfully identified in a DBT indicates to me that it is large enough to be termed "gross". The other unusual aspect of this Swedish test which made it successful (showing a positive outcome rather than a null result) was the inclusion of two (out of three) very experienced listeners, rather than ordinary audiophiles. You make the presumption that the audibility of such described brightness necessarily implies a gross frequency response error, yet you continue to ignore a very valid question. If that brightness would have been described as "a slight hardness and grain in the treble" in one of the players, how would you have reacted? Would you have maintained that the phrase "slight hardness and grain in the treble" means an "'an overabundance of high frequencies'; i.e.a frequency response error" and therefore come to the same conclusion? That's what "a slight hardness..." means to me and that's the point. It's only a semantic difference that you're drawing a faulty conclusion from. Audible differences are only the manifestation of some type of error or distortion and by maintaining that only "gross errors" are discernable under DBT conditions without defining what a gross error is, you have created a circular self-negating logic. (eg. if you can hear it blind, it must be a "gross error" which you agree is all that a DBT can discern, but if you can't hear it blind, it must be a "subtle difference".) Perhaps you can define the difference between "subtle" and "gross" differences without making reference to their audibility under DBT conditions. That might clear things up a bit. *snip* Fortunately, we now understand the fallacy of THD and RMS power ratings and have a far more sophistiated understanding of the measurable properties that make an amp transparent. That still doesn't tell the whole story of amplifier sound or transparency. Few amps are so transparent that they have no sound of their own. If we knew everything about measurements and making amplifiers transparent, wouldn't they all be built the same? There are actually a rather large number of amps that are transparent and when operated within their design limits, they are indistinguishable from one another. The reason that they're not all built the same is just basic marketing and economics. Every competant audio company knows how to build a transparent amp for a given application. If they did that, however, there would never be a way to tell them apart and the signature sounds of the manufacturers wouldn't exist, even though that sound often represents an intentional and marked departure from sonic transparency. Furthermore, an amp engineered such as a Krell is simply not required for the majority of home audio applications. That Krell continues to exist owes to the fact that there are some speakers that require such a current reserve, as well as the fact that people want the prestige of owning an amp that can drive a dead short even if such an amp is totally over-engineered for their application. snip Therefore, if such a characteristic is audible with bias controls in place, it can be said to be audible. (Claiming that the bias controls destroy the "subtle difference" is only a statement that can be made if one believes that such "subtle differences" represent something other than the aggregate of several other measurable properties. Not necessarily. The observation that no DBTs have shown subtle audible differences (dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstage reproduction, tonal color, timbral accuracy, etc.) between audio components using music as a source can either be explained by 1.) those differences do not really exist in audio components, or 2.) the test being used is flawed. Again we come to my question of semantics. It appears to me, that you draw the line between subtle audible difference and gross difference at what is audible under blind conditions. As before, this is circular and self-negating logic. As to your point about professional listeners engaged in a DBT...It's inconceivable to me that you would posit that it takes a professionally trained listener to perform accurately on a DBT, yet any Tom, Dick or Harry with ears is capable of performing accurately during sighted listening. It flies in the face of logic. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
..mkuller wrote:
and then claiming superiority because you used a strict protocol? Steven Sullivan wrote: Stricter protocols tend to yield more reliable results. Sometimes. Especially when there is actual scientific proof they are appropriate. In this case there is only pseudo-science. Just making a protocol stricter does not necessarily make it better or more reliable. mkuller The only audible memories that have been demonstrated to be large enough for this process are gross frequency and loudness differences - and then usually with pink noise, not music! Steven Sullivan The only audible memories that have been demonstrated to be 'large enough' for sighted comparison are grosser still -- it's the reason you can reliably tell a violin from a tube, for example. Wow, you must really be using a strict protocol! You can reliably tell a violin (musical instrument) from a tube (power amplification source). Impressive. You win. Regards, Mike |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:bkuubh01iuf@enews2 Saving the world from overpriced hifi like Krell (i don´t like their sound ;-)) or Jadis (they make music come alive and breethe, imho)? Well, that just shows that you have a preference for non-neutral amplifiers. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not *high fidelity*. However, according to the FAQ for this group it could well be *high end*. High fidelity isn't the only criteria for the high end. Dennis |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Golden ears? was THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
C. Leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Greenhill's and others' published tests have used 'experienced' listeners, often self-defined as 'audiophiles' or 'golden ears', sometimes, 'trained'. I have never, ever heard any audiophile describe himself as a "golden-ear." Rather, the term "golden ears" is a condescending, denigrating label that is applied by self-described "objectivists." Oh, really? You must not read the largely 'subjectivist' audiophile press. Here's the results page of a search of the phrase 'golden ear' on the Stereophile website. I assure you that few if any of them are denigrating usages: News Desk Search Results: Watermarking in the Studio As record labels look for new ways to lock down music production, a supplier of digital audio security services turns to watermarks. July 28, 2003 SDMI Watermarking Effort Rankles Engineers The Secure Digital Music Initiative's watermarking efforts have provoked the ire of recording engineers, who question the organization's motives and methods. May 29, 2000 SDMI Chooses Aris Technologies' MusiCode The Secure Digital Music Initiative has chosen Aris Technologies' MusiCode as its designated watermarking technology. August 9, 1999 SDMI Watermarks Tested In Nashville Stereophile's Barry Willis tries his luck in a listening test conducted by Sony. August 2, 1999 Somebody Let Them Know It's Not Quite Set Yet . . . Warner Music Group and Sonic Solutions starting in on multichannel "DVD-Audio" releases. August 31, 1998 Magazine Archives Search Results: Audio, Precision, & Measurement: Richard Cabot Robert Harley Vol.14 No.1 January, 1991 The Fifth Element #17 John Marks Vol.26 No.5 May, 2003 An Amplifier Listening Test William P. Banks and David Krajicek Vol.12 No.11 November, 1989 A Matter of Dimensions John Atkinson Vol.12 No.6 June, 1989 The Best Value in Audio John Atkinson Vol.25 No.4 April, 2002 2001 Records to Die For Stereophile Staff Vol.24 No.2 February, 2001 Fine Tunes #43 Jonathan Scull Vol.25 No.1 January, 2002 Spica TC-50 loudspeaker Anthony H. Cordesman & Various Vol.7 No.2 March, 1984 Audio & Alternative Medicine George Reisch Vol.23 No.5 May, 2000 Krell Full Power Balanced 350mc monoblock amplifier Jonathan Scull Vol.23 No.8 August, 2000 Deeper Meanings Robert Harley Vol.13 No.7 July, 1990 Scientists vs Audiophiles 1999 George Reisch Vol.22 No.3 March, 1999 Dunlavy Audio Labs Signature SC-VI loudspeaker Steven Stone Vol.19 No.8 August, 1996 The Highs & Lows of Double-Blind Testing C.J. Huss, J. Gordon Holt, Larry Archibald, et.al. Vol.8 No.5 May, 1985 Down With Flat! J. Gordon Holt Vol.8 No.4 April, 1985 Blind Listening John Atkinson & Will Hammond Vol.12 No.7 July, 1989 L'Affaire Belt J. Gordon Holt Vol.10 No.9 December, 1987 Measuring Loudspeakers, Part One John Atkinson Vol.21 No.11 November, 1998 1995 Records To Die For Stereophile Staff Vol.18 No.2 February, 1995 Audio: The View From Outside Lewis Lipnick Vol.9 No.7 November, 1986 In truth, every subjectivist audiophile I've ever known thought that almost anyone could hear what they were hearing... if only they took the time and effort to try. Oddly enough...objectivists tend to believe the same thing. -- -S. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Evaluating audio equipment
The basic idea of evaluating equipment by it's sound alone, is of course
interesting. Years ago I had a Kenwood integrated on trial for a small system in our summerhome, it sounded pretty good. I did however return it because the finish did not match in colour with the rest of the system. Instead I bought a much more powerful Yamaha integrated. So why did I never learn to live with the Yamaha? I had every reason to be optimistic towards the Yamaha, so if any perception was applied it was positive, still it did not help? About a year later, I ended up hunting one of the last of these Kenwood amplifiers in the country. I still think the Kenwood is good price/performance wise compared to the Yamaha. So if a DBT would tell me that I could not differentiate the Yamaha, from other "competent designed" amplifiers, would this make me feel better? or learn to live with it? I don't think so. Saying that CD players all sound the same, does not seem logical to me. Reading data accurately from the CD and converting the signal to analog is a process that likely will cause jitter and other audible artifacts to the signal, if this is not done good enough? Strange enough I have not noticed anybody mentioning preamps here, is this because they do not sound the same? If so, it could be interesting to hear qualified opinions on these. So what about speakers, finally one issue to discuss. We know they sound different. So what is a "competent designed" speaker? Could a definition be made? Probably not, with references to others asking related questions. Although I find it interesting to follow the debate here in RAHE, I am also puzzled about how often we see a very non constructive debate here. And as I understand, this has been going on for years, much the same. One should think this was religion or politics!! (Maybe it is, sort of?) To me it seems like a strange crusade for misguided music lovers. Buy good speakers and a Yamaha receiver with a cheap DVD player and you will be happy. If you do not like the sound, do a DBT, and you will know that YOU have a perception problem. Somehow I don't think that this scheme will work? On the other hand, it is of course interesting if real cheap quality products are available, I know that some really like the new digital amplifiers, cheap and powerful with good dynamics. Are any of these "competent designed"? Maybe there are issues that should be avoided here, in order to break the evil circle. Just to moove on, and (hopefully) do things in a more positive spirit. I know that there are many people here with much good knowledge and experience, it must be possible to use this in a more constructive way than this? KE |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
mkuller wrote:
If DBTs are the only bias control method you allow to determine what 'real' audible differences between audio components are, then how do you know that what you're hearing - with loudspeakers - is not preconceptions or bias as well? You can't have it both ways. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Simple really. You do DBTs on several speakers, you score 100% every time, you don't waste any more time doing DBTs on speakers........... So, you imply that by scoring 100% on a few speaker DBTs that you can conclude ALL speakers sound different. You never have to perform another DBT with them. And the corollary would be that all the audible differences you hear from sighted listening to speakers are real as well - no more bias or preconceptions because on a few you scored - 100%! Amazing. I feel like yu're trying to pull me through the looking glass... Wait, I won't go. Regards, Mike |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
From my extensive observational listening as an audio equipment reviewer for over 15 years, I am convinced those subtle differences exist. And here we have the cornerstone of your blind faith. If these differences do not exist in the physical world, then you have nothing to write about! Aside from your own opinion, just where is *any* shred of reliable and repeatable evidence that these differences actually exist? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:51:01 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:bkuubh01iuf@enews2 Saving the world from overpriced hifi like Krell (i don´t like their sound ;-)) or Jadis (they make music come alive and breethe, imho)? Well, that just shows that you have a preference for non-neutral amplifiers. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not *high fidelity*. However, according to the FAQ for this group it could well be *high end*. High fidelity isn't the only criteria for the high end. Actually, experience shows that 'high end' and 'high fidelity' are almost always mutually exclusive terms! :-( It's logical enough, since if you're charging $25,000 for a CD transport and DAC pair, then you *defifinitely* want them to sound *different* from the mass of $500 single-box players, which mostly sound the same. Since those players are accurate, i.e. they possess high fidelity, then your only recourse is to *degrade* the expensive rig in some euphonic way.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Evaluating audio equipment
"All Ears" wrote in message ...
The basic idea of evaluating equipment by it's sound alone, is of course interesting. Years ago I had a Kenwood integrated on trial for a small system in our summerhome, it sounded pretty good. I did however return it because the finish did not match in colour with the rest of the system. Instead I bought a much more powerful Yamaha integrated. So why did I never learn to live with the Yamaha? I had every reason to be optimistic towards the Yamaha, so if any perception was applied it was positive, still it did not help? About a year later, I ended up hunting one of the last of these Kenwood amplifiers in the country. I still think the Kenwood is good price/performance wise compared to the Yamaha. So if a DBT would tell me that I could not differentiate the Yamaha, from other "competent designed" amplifiers, would this make me feel better? or learn to live with it? I don't think so. Saying that CD players all sound the same, does not seem logical to me. Reading data accurately from the CD and converting the signal to analog is a process that likely will cause jitter and other audible artifacts to the signal, if this is not done good enough? All CD players probably do not sound the same, but most of these have so small differences that you can live with them without problem. In rare cases there might be large differences (such as incorrectly set de-emphasis). See some links in my very simple home-page: http://hem.bredband.net/b113928/ Strange enough I have not noticed anybody mentioning preamps here, is this because they do not sound the same? If so, it could be interesting to hear qualified opinions on these. Pre-amps are also very seldom different from each other although there are cases where differences are audible. http://hem.bredband.net/b113928/The_...antzSR4300.htm So what about speakers, finally one issue to discuss. We know they sound different. So what is a "competent designed" speaker? Could a definition be made? Probably not, with references to others asking related questions. By definition a competent designed speaker is a speaker where the output does not change too much from the incoming signal. Then of course, a speaker can be made to work in a small room/nearfield listening or in a large cinema, and there are thus different designs depending on the application. Thus, a company making a small wide-dispersion speaker to be used in a cinema can regarded as incompetently designed. On the other hand they may work excellent as near-field monitors in a studio. Although I find it interesting to follow the debate here in RAHE, I am also puzzled about how often we see a very non constructive debate here. And as I understand, this has been going on for years, much the same. One should think this was religion or politics!! (Maybe it is, sort of?) To me it seems like a strange crusade for misguided music lovers. Buy good speakers and a Yamaha receiver with a cheap DVD player and you will be happy. If you do not like the sound, do a DBT, and you will know that YOU have a perception problem. Somehow I don't think that this scheme will work? On the other hand, it is of course interesting if real cheap quality products are available, I know that some really like the new digital amplifiers, cheap and powerful with good dynamics. Are any of these "competent designed"? Maybe there are issues that should be avoided here, in order to break the evil circle. Just to moove on, and (hopefully) do things in a more positive spirit. I know that there are many people here with much good knowledge and experience, it must be possible to use this in a more constructive way than this? KE |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
AHH! Stewart, degrade?
Obviously they think it possible in domestic situations to enhance beyond simple high fidelity. And at least a goodly number of people agree. I don't believe tube amps to be superior to good solid state amps. They simply aren't. On the other hand, in general I find it easier to tap my toe to the music when vacuum tubes are in the amplifier. Something seems better sub- jectively. And for recreational use on music little else matters. Dennis "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:51:01 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:bkuubh01iuf@enews2 Saving the world from overpriced hifi like Krell (i don´t like their sound ;-)) or Jadis (they make music come alive and breethe, imho)? Well, that just shows that you have a preference for non-neutral amplifiers. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not *high fidelity*. However, according to the FAQ for this group it could well be *high end*. High fidelity isn't the only criteria for the high end. Actually, experience shows that 'high end' and 'high fidelity' are almost always mutually exclusive terms! :-( It's logical enough, since if you're charging $25,000 for a CD transport and DAC pair, then you *defifinitely* want them to sound *different* from the mass of $500 single-box players, which mostly sound the same. Since those players are accurate, i.e. they possess high fidelity, then your only recourse is to *degrade* the expensive rig in some euphonic way.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Golden ears? was THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"C. Leeds" wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote: Greenhill's and others' published tests have used 'experienced' listeners, often self-defined as 'audiophiles' or 'golden ears', sometimes, 'trained'. I have never, ever heard any audiophile describe himself as a "golden-ear." Rather, the term "golden ears" is a condescending, denigrating label that is applied by self-described "objectivists." In truth, every subjectivist audiophile I've ever known thought that almost anyone could hear what they were hearing... if only they took the time and effort to try. Hopefully, those "almost anyone" types and those who felt that the artifacts they were hearing were clearly audible would "try" by means of a DBT and not some kind of sighted popularity contest. Howard Ferstler |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Well Stewart is there someone who wants music to be
unpleasant? I remind you high fidelity isn't the only version of high end. The tone of your reply makes it seem like subjectively enhanced "pleasant" music is somehow second rate compared to simple high fidelity. I think sometimes the reverse is true. You think of it as technically degraded, I think of it as subjectively enhanced. Reproduced music in your living room or music room is objectively not close to the actual Absolute Sound in a live space. It may be reproduced with very good fidelity to the two or five channels on the recording. But this won't allow a reproduction of that soundfield with high accuracy in your home. If certain careful fidelity degraded changes to the two or five channels trick me into hearing something I find more like the real Absolute Sound subjectively, and I find it more pleasing, I would call that a useful enhancement. It is a coloration or a filtering of sorts. It isn't maximum fidelity. But it could be very high end even if a 'merely' a preference. Dennis "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:04:48 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: AHH! Stewart, degrade? In the technical sense, yes. Obviously they think it possible in domestic situations to enhance beyond simple high fidelity. And at least a goodly number of people agree. I'm sure they do. That however has nothing to do with *high fidelity* sound reproduction, as I've already noted. I don't believe tube amps to be superior to good solid state amps. They simply aren't. On the other hand, in general I find it easier to tap my toe to the music when vacuum tubes are in the amplifier. Something seems better sub- jectively. And for recreational use on music little else matters. That depends on whether you are interested in 'pleasant' music, or the *accurate* reproduction of recorded sound, aka the closest approach to the original sound, or The Absolute Sound. Of course, there *are* a very few truly accurate tubed amps - but they are sonically indistinguishable from good SS amps, so we are back to euphonic degradation if you have a preference for the 'sound' of tubes. Naturally, it's not possible to argue against a preference, when not defended in any technical sense. In this, we are in agreement. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:32:08 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote: I don't believe that most amps are transparent or that most manufacturers would make them that way but chose to design in a signature sound. Yes, we know you don't, but how does that affect the reality that many amps are in *fact* sonically indistinguishable, and hence can logically be described as transparent? Saying a Krell or Halcro is over-engineered is saying a Porsche is over-engineered because a Yugo will get you from point a to point b. There's a small amount of logic in that, except that the 911 is overengineered in order to overcome a fundamental design flaw, while the Krell and Halcro are overengineered in order that owners may have confidence in their ability to drive *any* speaker load without varying their sound quality. An Arcam A85 is a sonically indistinguishable substitute in 99% of domestic sound systems, even if it doesn't convey the same pride of ownership. One is tempted to mention the Corvette in the same context re the 996 Turbo....... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Here's my analogy. The Porsche 911 twin turbo is marginally faster than a C5 Z06 Corvette (as determined by a couple magazine test reports) but costs over twice as much. The PASS Labs Aleph monoblock amplifiers cost approximately 25 times as much as a then 10-year old Yamaha Integrated amplifier yet sounded exactly the same as the Yamaha in the reference system of the PASS owner driving Dunlavy loudspeakers. At least both brought listeners to the same point which is often not the case with those pricey triode single ended tubed jobs. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:34:59 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: Well Stewart is there someone who wants music to be unpleasant? If the original performance was unpleasant, yes. I remind you high fidelity isn't the only version of high end. I am *well* aware of that! :-( The tone of your reply makes it seem like subjectively enhanced "pleasant" music is somehow second rate compared to simple high fidelity. That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many 'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging rights...................... I think sometimes the reverse is true. You think of it as technically degraded, I think of it as subjectively enhanced. Fine, we have different preferences. I have no problem with that. Reproduced music in your living room or music room is objectively not close to the actual Absolute Sound in a live space. Sadly, this is true - but I'm doing the best I can! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Denis said
Well Stewart is there someone who wants music to be unpleasant? Stewart said If the original performance was unpleasant, yes. Sound quality and performance quality are mutually exclusive. Give me a skillfully remastered (colored, degraded in fidelity, or euphonic) transfer of a bad recording of a good performance over an unfettered transfer any day. Your prferences may vary. Stewart said That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many 'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging rights...................... Perhaps it isn't so mysterious if the SET is euphonic in it's colorations and the Bose and B&O are not euphonic in their colorations. Maybe it has nothing to do with price or status. I don't think the effect is the same. We can always test your assertion by comparing a Bose based system with any "highend system" that uses a SET. I'll bet the net effect is quite different. Stewart said Fine, we have different preferences. I have no problem with that. Then why make a comparison between the effect of a SET to the effect of a Bose speaker given the common opinions audiophiles have of Bose ? Denis said Reproduced music in your living room or music room is objectively not close to the actual Absolute Sound in a live space. Stewart said Sadly, this is true - but I'm doing the best I can! :-) -- I believe you. So are many of the audiophiles who use SETs and other components you find "incompetent." Success in this endevour is in the ears of the beholder. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
S888Wheel wrote:
Denis said Well Stewart is there someone who wants music to be unpleasant? Stewart said If the original performance was unpleasant, yes. Sound quality and performance quality are mutually exclusive. Well, not *exclusive*. You mean, independent. Give me a skillfully remastered (colored, degraded in fidelity, or euphonic) transfer of a bad recording of a good performance over an unfettered transfer any day. Your prferences may vary. Stewart was taking the original poster at his word. If the original poster meant 'who wants reproduction to sound unpleasant' that's what should have been written. Whether the *music* is unpleasant ,and whether that matters , is another issue; the composer Milton Babbit famously wrote an essay during the heyday of serialism, called 'Who Cares if You Listen?" Stewart said That would be my personal opinion, certainly. Interestingly, many 'audiophiles' would instantly agree, if I mentioned B&O or Bose in this context, but for some mysterious reason would *not* agree if I mentioned SET amps. Same effect, different price point and bragging rights...................... Perhaps it isn't so mysterious if the SET is euphonic in it's colorations and the Bose and B&O are not euphonic in their colorations. At least some people like the way Bose's sound; some are even fervent in their devotion. Therefore Bose speakers are 'euphonic' by the same criteria audiophiles use for LP/turntables. (If popularity is any indication, Bose speakers are far more euphonic than SET amps.) Euphonic just means 'sounds pleasant' . It doesn't specify to how many. Some people don't like the 'euphonic' distortions of turntables, either. -- -S. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
| Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion | Audio Opinions | |||
| Cables used when rec. from tape to PC question. | General | |||
| Kenwood DIN cables - custom lengths? can they be spliced? | Car Audio | |||
| Ears vs. Instruments | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
