[Iordani]

This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around
here, but being just an average user I am curious.

There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different
amplifiers, cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the
quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system).
Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the
equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. Discussions most
often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from
start. All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered
why, today, with all the high tech gear around, there is no objective
way to test things.

I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something
like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one*
plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current
decides what comes out as sound.

Now the questions:

1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and
variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same
piece of 'sound'?
or
2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil
(or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'?
3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already?
4. if so, why are they not considered reliable?
4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple.

My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, by
physical law, cause the coil to move in the exact same way and so create
the exact same sound.
The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment
never produces *exactly* the same thing. Still, one would get a value for
the difference in data, no?
If of any interest, I side with those who trust the results from the
ABX-tests.

Thanks

[Arny Krueger]

"Iordani" wrote in message

1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual
current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers
(or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'?

Yes, but of equal or greater interest is the voltage produced by an
amplifier. Either can be measured.

2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual
*movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers
playing the same piece of 'sound'?

Cone movement is usually measured directly by means of laser inferiometery.
So, yes.

3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done
already?

Yes.

4. if so, why are they not considered reliable?

I consider them to be reliable for what they reveal, so I decline to answer
this question.

My thinking is of course that an identical flow of
current will, by physical law, cause the coil to move
in the exact same way and so create the exact same sound.

That's how it works, all other things being equal.

However, its more common to measure the voltage across a speaker.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:39:57 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ):

This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around
here, but being just an average user I am curious.

There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different
amplifiers, cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the
quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system).
Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the
equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. Discussions most
often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from
start. All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered
why, today, with all the high tech gear around, there is no objective
way to test things.

I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something
like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one*
plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current
decides what comes out as sound.

Now the questions:

1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and
variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same
piece of 'sound'?
or
2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil
(or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'?
3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already?
4. if so, why are they not considered reliable?
4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple.

My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, by
physical law, cause the coil to move in the exact same way and so create
the exact same sound.
The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment
never produces *exactly* the same thing. Still, one would get a value for
the difference in data, no?
If of any interest, I side with those who trust the results from the
ABX-tests.

Thanks

While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking
the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality
of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking
about measuring the wrong things. Current strength and variations address
distortion not at all and neither does the movement of the loudspeaker's
cone. Sound is a complex waveform which doesn't yield to such first order
effects such as measuring current or speaker cone displacement. There is even
controversy about how the things we do measure (harmonic distortion,
intermodulation distortion, etc.) actually DOES affect what we hear.

[Doug McDonald[_3_]]

Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:39:57 -0800, Iordani wrote


I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something
like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one*
plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current
decides what comes out as sound.

Now the questions:

1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and
variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same
piece of 'sound'?
or
2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil
(or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'?
3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already?
4. if so, why are they not considered reliable?
4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple.


While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking
the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality
of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking
about measuring the wrong things. Current strength and variations address
distortion not at all and neither does the movement of the loudspeaker's
cone. Sound is a complex waveform which doesn't yield to such first order
effects such as measuring current or speaker cone displacement.

Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless.

Current is not all that important because speaker impedance and
efficiency vary with frequency.

Cone movement **IS** of course a vital thing. But a cone is not a
perfect piston, it distorts (physically) so you must measure it at all
points. This can and has been done and is a great way to characterize a
speaker. But even it is not everything, because the whole cabinet
vibrates too, and for woofers there often is sound coming out of a port.

Doug McDonald

[Iordani]

Arny, Sonnova, Dough.

Thanks for your opinions.

Doug McDonald wrote:

Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless.

Sonnova wrote:

While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually
asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the
quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you
are asking about measuring the wrong things.

No, this is not what I suggested. I fully understand that it's totally
meaningless/impossible task to try to calculate sound and the it's quality,
at least using today's knowledge. So I will try to clarify myself.
What I suggest is actually the very opposite and the keyword is *compare*.

Arny suggested it would be possible to measure the coil's movement by using
laser technology so let's say we use this.
I assume we agree on that the movement of the coil creates the sound and
that an identical pattern of moving it will cause an identical sound. Yes?

The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). Still, nothing is
ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every
direction possible and also to detect for flex in the coil itself.
Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation
and a sufficient sample rate. So we will get 4 sets of data with
nanometer(?) values called data set A.
We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound.
We collect the data called data set B.
We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there
are some sort of differences between them.
If there are none then equipment is equal.
If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values
signifying quality, just pure values)

So, what's (theoretically) wrong with this?

Thanks

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:22:28 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ):

Arny, Sonnova, Dough.

Thanks for your opinions.

Doug McDonald wrote:

Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless.

Sonnova wrote:

While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually
asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the
quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you
are asking about measuring the wrong things.

No, this is not what I suggested. I fully understand that it's totally
meaningless/impossible task to try to calculate sound and the it's quality,
at least using today's knowledge. So I will try to clarify myself.
What I suggest is actually the very opposite and the keyword is *compare*.

Arny suggested it would be possible to measure the coil's movement by using
laser technology so let's say we use this.
I assume we agree on that the movement of the coil creates the sound and
that an identical pattern of moving it will cause an identical sound. Yes?

Theoretically, yes. I think I know where you are going. Let's see if I'm
right...

The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). Still, nothing is
ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every
direction possible and also to detect for flex in the coil itself.
Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation
and a sufficient sample rate. So we will get 4 sets of data with
nanometer(?) values called data set A.
We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound.
We collect the data called data set B.
We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there
are some sort of differences between them.
If there are none then equipment is equal.
If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values
signifying quality, just pure values)

So, what's (theoretically) wrong with this?

Well, I was wrong. You went somewhere else. OK.

First of all, unless one has something against which to compare the data from
your original laser interferometer test, it's meaningless in and of itself.
While you WOULD build a profile of the speaker's movement, without some frame
of reference, that profile would largely be useless except as a basis for
comparing OTHER interferometer profiles for the purpose of determining
differences between the original profile and subsequent ones. IOW, making the
laser interferometer profile would tell you something about the speaker under
test (and perhaps, to some degree, the components powering it), but that
profile would tell you little about how the system actually reproduces music,
unless, somehow, you had been able to do a similar profile of the original
performance. Without that, the laser would give you uncorrelatable data. Data
that, in and of itself, means nothing because we don't know what the data is
telling us except that it is an accurate representation of transducer (cone
or diaphragm) movement at any given instant. We would not know, for instance,
how that transducer movement corresponds with what we actually hear. All we
could do is change something in the chain and see if the laser interferometer
results would be different after the change. If they were different, we would
know that the change had altered the transducer movement in a significant
enough way to affect the interferometer data. OTOH, if the interferometer
registered no change in the transducer's response to the equipment change, it
does NOT tell us that no audible change has occurred in the system, because
without any reference, we wouldn't know what the resolution limits are of the
laser measurement techniques, nor how the results of the laser interferometer
correlate with how we hear. To put it another way. A difference in the
speaker profile would indicate that changing-out a component in the system
has made a detectable and measurable difference in the speaker's movement,
but the absence of such a change in results would not necessarily mean that
changing-out an upstream component DID NOT make a difference in how the
system sounds.

Thanks

[bob]

On Jan 10, 10:22*am, Iordani wrote:

The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). *Still, *nothing is
ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every
direction possible and *also to detect for flex in the coil itself.
Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation
and a sufficient sample rate. *So we will get 4 sets of data with
nanometer(?) values called data set A.
We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound.
We collect the data called data set B.
We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there
are some sort of differences between them. *
If there are none then equipment is equal.
If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values
signifying quality, *just pure values)

What would be the difference between this and simply measuring the
electrical signal at the speaker terminals? I'm not clear on why you
think measuring cone movement is critical here.

Also, you will almost always get differences in the signal with any
change—even swapping out two "identical" amps. So you're still left
with the question of how much difference is necessary to be audible.
But measuring cone movement doesn't solve that problem.

I suppose there could be some differences in signal that wouldn't
result in measurable differences in cone movement (depending on your
resolution), but I can't see where that gets you very much in terms of
sorting out the audible from the inaudible.

bob

bob

[Skeeter]

On Jan 7, 6:39*pm, Iordani wrote:
This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around
here, *but being just an average user I am curious.

There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different
amplifiers, *cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the
quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system).
Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the
equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. *Discussions most
often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from
start. *All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered
why, *today, *with all the high tech gear around, *there is no objective
way to test things.

I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something
like, *that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one*
plane, *that is back and forth. *Strength and variation in this current
decides what comes out as sound.

Now the questions:

1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and
variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same
piece of 'sound'? *
or
2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil
(or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'?
3. if it's possible, *have this kind of tests been done already?
4. if so, *why are they not considered reliable?
4. if not at all possible, why is that? *Please keep it technically simple.

My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, *by
physical law, *cause the coil to move in the *exact same way and so create
the exact same sound. *
The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment
never produces *exactly* the same thing. *Still, *one would get a value for
the difference in data, *no?
If of any interest, *I side with those who trust the results from the
ABX-tests.

Thanks


Measure, measure, measure....

Only really useful for measuring stuff... Being that our own hearing
is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either
like, love, dislike, hate... what we perceive as proper fidelity, and
what we perceive as not so proper fidelity in sound reproduction.

Technical reports and measurements do not mean much to me regarding
any sound reproduction setup. I trust my ears and mind when
evaluating sonic worth, or quality. If I can reliably hear something
not right, then I have to ignore any amount of papers or measurements
that say that I shouldn't hear a difference. If I can't reliably hear
something not right, then I have to ignore any amount of papers or
measurements that say that I should hear a difference.

This is a very objective process, using the only equipment that
matters... my ears and brain. If I can reliably distinguish an
audible occurance, then it is real to me. If I can't, then it doesn't
matter because I can't hear it.

Trust your own listening gear. There is nothing else that you can use
that can make a difference in what you hear.

Cheers,
Skeeter

[Steven Sullivan]

Skeeter wrote:
Measure, measure, measure....

Only really useful for measuring stuff... Being that our own hearing
is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either
like, love, dislike, hate...

No, it isn't. It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio
quality -- whether we like one thing better than another --
can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think
we know) beforehand.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Skeeter]

On Jan 17, 12:51*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
Measure, measure, measure....
Only really useful for measuring stuff... *Being that our own hearing
is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either
like, love, dislike, hate...

No, it isn't. *It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio
quality -- whether we like one thing better than another --
can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think
we know) beforehand.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Hi Steve,

Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so. An
objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious
knowledge of the source being auditioned. The auditioning process
must be totally blind of distraction.

If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio
reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements
that claim that it shouldn't be true. If a person accurately, and
reliably can identify the offending source, that is all that really
matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening
skill, and conscious discrimination.

If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given
audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how
many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a
person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that
is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or
distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it.

I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts
of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were
entirely happy with the result.

To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people
were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it
should not be possible.

Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own
hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that
would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio.

Cheers,
Skeeter

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:42 -0800, Skeeter wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 17, 12:51*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
Measure, measure, measure....
Only really useful for measuring stuff... *Being that our own hearing
is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either
like, love, dislike, hate...

No, it isn't. *It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio
quality -- whether we like one thing better than another --
can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think
we know) beforehand.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Hi Steve,

Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so. An
objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious
knowledge of the source being auditioned. The auditioning process
must be totally blind of distraction.

If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio
reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements
that claim that it shouldn't be true. If a person accurately, and
reliably can identify the offending source, that is all that really
matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening
skill, and conscious discrimination.

If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given
audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how
many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a
person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that
is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or
distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it.

I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts
of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were
entirely happy with the result.

There is growing evidence that the ear is not very sensitive to the types of
distortions that are traditionally measured. Most people, for instance, would
not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001% THD, 0.01% THD, and
0.1% THD. That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to 1% and more. In a
listening test that I was party to a number of years ago, the assembled panel
of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube
amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD initially, and then
one was re-biased down the output tubes' characteristic curve (in steps)
until the bias was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer was
reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test, and neither the
technician adjusting the bias on one of the amps nor the panel knew which amp
they were listening to. Several of the members of the panel started picking
out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about 1.25%, but not
everybody heard it until about 2% (this was using a 400Hz tone). When music
was played through both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any
difference between the amps, and we never did get a reliable consensus.

To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people
were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it
should not be possible.

I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even IM that that they
were cuing upon. It was something else, perhaps speaker/amp interaction,
frequency response anomalies, or even something as simple as a level mismatch
(and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into thinking that the louder amp
is, somehow, the better one.).

Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own
hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that
would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio.

Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average
audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive,
the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit.

[Skeeter]

Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average
audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive,
the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit.

Hi Sonnova,

I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations
either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing
sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind
environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations,
a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar
source recordings.

I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much
weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own
auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are
foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture
status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they
deserve and are likely not very critical listeners.

Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be
satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own
ears.

Cheers,
Skeeter

[Steven Sullivan]

Skeeter wrote:
On Jan 17, 12:51?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
Measure, measure, measure....
Only really useful for measuring stuff... ?Being that our own hearing
is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either
like, love, dislike, hate...

No, it isn't. ?It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio
quality -- whether we like one thing better than another --
can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think
we know) beforehand.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Hi Steve,

Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so.

Wrong.


An
objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious
knowledge of the source being auditioned.

Wrong.


The auditioning process
must be totally blind of distraction.


Yes, and to do that, blind methods must be used.


If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio
reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements
that claim that it shouldn't be true.

Actually, it does.


If a person accurately, and
reliably can identify the offending source

The science tell us that that's a mighty big IF.


that is all that really
matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening
skill, and conscious discrimination.

But it may not be objectively true.

If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given
audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how
many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a
person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that
is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or
distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it.


That means is that that person cannot hear it. If someone
else can. under properly controlled conditions, then the effect is
real.

I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts
of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were
entirely happy with the result.

That is a matter of preference, not a question of whether the distortion
was audible or not.

To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people
were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it
should not be possible.

There has *never*, to my knowledge, been a case wehre difference
verified under double blind conditions, did not have a reasonable
measurable cause.

Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own
hearing.

Not really; best advice is to be aware of the fact that their hearing
could be influenced by other factors...especially when 'auditioning'
high-priced gear.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Skeeter" wrote in message


Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust
their own hearing. After all, what else could you
possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your
enjoyment of reproduced audio.

To trust your hearing and just your hearing is the goal of the now 30-year
old reliable listening test initiative, which started with the invention of
ABX testing of commercial and home-made audio equipment.

[Harry Lavo]

"Skeeter" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another
way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the
average
audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more
expensive,
the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit.

Hi Sonnova,

I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations
either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing
sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind
environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations,
a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar
source recordings.

I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much
weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own
auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are
foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture
status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they
deserve and are likely not very critical listeners.

Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be
satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own
ears.

Cheers,
Skeeter

Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses
insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself.
Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and
have musically accurate systems as a result, low component turnover, and
years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Skeeter" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another
way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the
average
audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more
expensive,
the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit.

Hi Sonnova,

I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations
either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing
sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind
environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations,
a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar
source recordings.

I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much
weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own
auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are
foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture
status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they
deserve and are likely not very critical listeners.

Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be
satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own
ears.

Cheers,
Skeeter

Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses
insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself.

You are fooling yours self if you think you can self-immunize against
cognitive bias sufficiently enough to make controls unnecessary.

If people could do that, don't you think science would have adopted such
a huge time-saver by now?

Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and
have musically accurate systems as a result,

Accurate determined *how*? (I can guess what the answer will be)

low component turnover, and
years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert.

Which proves exactly nothing.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


There is growing evidence that the ear is not very
sensitive to the types of distortions that are
traditionally measured.

Huh?

Most people, for instance, would
not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001%
THD, 0.01% THD, and 0.1% THD.

That's an indication of how good amplifiers are these days. So little
nonlinear distortion of any kind that it is not a reason to prefer one over
another.

It in no way is a criticism of nonlinear distortion as a means for
evaluating amplifiers. Nonlinear distortion in sufficient quantities
detracts from an amplifiers sonic transparency.

Imagine that every car obtained 10,000 mpg. Would that mean that fuel
economy was no longer important? What it would mean that fuel economy was no
longer a good reason to choose one car over another.

That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to
1% and more.

That depends on the music being used to run the test.

In a listening test that I was party to a
number of years ago, the assembled panel of audiophiles
couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube
amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD
initially, and then one was re-biased down the output
tubes' characteristic curve (in steps) until the bias
was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer
was reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test,
and neither the technician adjusting the bias on one of
the amps nor the panel knew which amp they were listening
to. Several of the members of the panel started picking
out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about
1.25%, but not everybody heard it until about 2% (this
was using a 400Hz tone). When music was played through
both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any
difference between the amps, and we never did get a
reliable consensus.

That sounds like a listening test based on say piano or organ music. Both
have quite a few harmonics of their own, so adding a few more in the right
places is not readily noticed by the ear.

To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurrences where
some people were able to reliably identify audio sources
when technically, it should not be possible.

That has never been documented to occur during a proper bias-controlled
listening test. If you know of such a case and can document it, you could
obtain fame if not fortune by getting it published. Editors of audio-related
professional journals love to print articles like this, if they prove to be
true when examined by experts.

I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even
IM that they were cuing upon. It was something else,
perhaps speaker/amp interaction, frequency response
anomalies, or even something as simple as a level
mismatch (and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into
thinking that the louder amp is, somehow, the better
one.).

All of those thing are easily measured and have known thresholds.

Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust
their own hearing. After all, what else could you
possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your
enjoyment of reproduced audio.

If the listening tests are properly done, and not done with too much of a
casual attitude as is very common these days, listening tests of components
other than speakers, microphones, phono cartrdiges and analog tape tend to
not provide much guidance for making choices. Amps, digital players and the
like strongly tend to sound very similar or the same.

Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears,
which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers,
preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is
going to pick the one that he knows to be the more
expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc.
as the better unit.

Given that the average audiophile does not level match or time synch when he
compares components, he is likely to pick components based on trivial
properties such as which piece of equipment's volume control setting is more
to the listener's preference. If the volume controls or output levels of the
two pieces of equipment were set a little differently, the audiophile's
preference might be different.

Or, since almost all audiophile listening evaluations are often also not
bias controlled, the listener may align the level mismatch that he can hear
with the some supposed technical refinement that he can't hear.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:26:38 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Skeeter" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another
way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the
average
audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more
expensive,
the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit.

Hi Sonnova,

I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations
either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing
sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind
environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations,
a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar
source recordings.

I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much
weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own
auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are
foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture
status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they
deserve and are likely not very critical listeners.

Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be
satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own
ears.

Cheers,
Skeeter

Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses
insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself.

You are fooling yours self if you think you can self-immunize against
cognitive bias sufficiently enough to make controls unnecessary.

If people could do that, don't you think science would have adopted such
a huge time-saver by now?

How right you are!

Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and
have musically accurate systems as a result,

Accurate determined *how*? (I can guess what the answer will be)

low component turnover, and
years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert.

Which proves exactly nothing.

Except that he's happy with he has chosen. You cannot get a much bang for
your buck than that!

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:49:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


There is growing evidence that the ear is not very
sensitive to the types of distortions that are
traditionally measured.

Huh?

Most people, for instance, would
not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001%
THD, 0.01% THD, and 0.1% THD.

That's an indication of how good amplifiers are these days. So little
nonlinear distortion of any kind that it is not a reason to prefer one over
another.

It in no way is a criticism of nonlinear distortion as a means for
evaluating amplifiers. Nonlinear distortion in sufficient quantities
detracts from an amplifiers sonic transparency.

Imagine that every car obtained 10,000 mpg. Would that mean that fuel
economy was no longer important? What it would mean that fuel economy was no
longer a good reason to choose one car over another.

That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to
1% and more.

That depends on the music being used to run the test.

In a listening test that I was party to a
number of years ago, the assembled panel of audiophiles
couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube
amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD
initially, and then one was re-biased down the output
tubes' characteristic curve (in steps) until the bias
was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer
was reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test,
and neither the technician adjusting the bias on one of
the amps nor the panel knew which amp they were listening
to. Several of the members of the panel started picking
out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about
1.25%, but not everybody heard it until about 2% (this
was using a 400Hz tone). When music was played through
both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any
difference between the amps, and we never did get a
reliable consensus.

That sounds like a listening test based on say piano or organ music. Both
have quite a few harmonics of their own, so adding a few more in the right
places is not readily noticed by the ear.

To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurrences where
some people were able to reliably identify audio sources
when technically, it should not be possible.

That has never been documented to occur during a proper bias-controlled
listening test. If you know of such a case and can document it, you could
obtain fame if not fortune by getting it published. Editors of audio-related
professional journals love to print articles like this, if they prove to be
true when examined by experts.

I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even
IM that they were cuing upon. It was something else,
perhaps speaker/amp interaction, frequency response
anomalies, or even something as simple as a level
mismatch (and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into
thinking that the louder amp is, somehow, the better
one.).

All of those thing are easily measured and have known thresholds.

Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust
their own hearing. After all, what else could you
possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your
enjoyment of reproduced audio.

If the listening tests are properly done, and not done with too much of a
casual attitude as is very common these days, listening tests of components
other than speakers, microphones, phono cartrdiges and analog tape tend to
not provide much guidance for making choices. Amps, digital players and the
like strongly tend to sound very similar or the same.

Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears,
which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers,
preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is
going to pick the one that he knows to be the more
expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc.
as the better unit.

Given that the average audiophile does not level match or time synch when he
compares components, he is likely to pick components based on trivial
properties such as which piece of equipment's volume control setting is more
to the listener's preference. If the volume controls or output levels of the
two pieces of equipment were set a little differently, the audiophile's
preference might be different.

But I'm not talking about sonic evaluations with the above comment. I'm
talking about how SEEING (or knowing about) the device under evaluation
prejudices the listener. While you are right about tiny errors in test setup
being able to influence the sonic results of the evaluation, its another
subject.

Or, since almost all audiophile listening evaluations are often also not
bias controlled, the listener may align the level mismatch that he can hear
with the some supposed technical refinement that he can't hear.

True, but that's not what I was saying.

[Skeeter]

Hi Steve,

Excuse me, but I feel that I must reiterate the reasoning, or purpose
of possessing and procuring an audio reproduction system; and
attempting to be as rational as possible.

My understanding of this hobby, or passion is that I want to be
convinced, or fooled by my audio reproduction system, and believe that
I could be witnessing the original audio event.

Next, I would like to clear the air of any misconceptions that may be
prejudicing your comments. I am not a glitz and glam fan of high
priced, or mysteriously esoteric audio culture products. I am
basically a cheapskate, and have a most difficult time justifying my
next purchase of anything. I do however appreciate and take into
consideration the build of an item, and the longevity and reliability
that is possible. Normally spending a fair price for good design,
manufacturing, and workmanship yields this.

I don't care about the cosmetics. This stuff is not part of my
decor. With the exception of the loudspeakers, my electronics are
always hidden from sight. I don't like the look of electronics in my
house.

In some rooms, I have managed to hide the louspeakers to varying
degrees as well. But I never compromise the loudspeaker's room
loading position to better hide it.

BUT (Behold the Underlying Truth), I want it as economical as
possible! I can't help being frugal, it's been built in since birth.
I always want the best resulting possible audio reproduction, but also
the best value for my effort and money.

I do use the results and probabilities that science provides us with
to help qualify whether a new component may offer some improvement in
creating my convinicing audio illusion. I do pore over
specifications. Having been a hobbyist for almost 40 years, and
having an engineer's mindset my entire life strongly inclines me
towards understanding the technology and testing, scientific method,
et al.

However, it is my own hearing equipment, listening discrimination, and
consciousness that requires to be convinced or fooled with this
setup. I do not believe that measurements and statistical studies
with sample groups is absolutely accurate, relevant or parallel to my
own listening experience. These are very helpful, but not exactly the
last word every time.

The last word, or final discrimination is always my own. I always
compare and audition absolutely blind. I always insist upon using
recordings that I am very familiar with in reproduction and source
witnessing.

The closer I am convinced, or fooled, then the recording and
reproduction are serving my purpose. Regardless of any measurements
or documented, statistical study. If I am further from being
convinced, or fooled, then the reverse is true to me. Again,
regardless of any measurements or documented, statistical study.

When I invite a friend or colleague over for listening session, I
don't spout measurements, statistics, and study results. I don't show
the equipment of my setup to impress anyone. It's not a hot rod car.
We get comfortable and listen for enjoyment and potentially a magic
moment of "I felt like I was right there!"

What else could we be indulging?

Cheers,
Skeeter

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Jan 22, 6:53*pm, Skeeter wrote:
Hi Steve,

Excuse me, but I feel that I must reiterate the reasoning, or purpose
of possessing and procuring anaudioreproduction system; and
attempting to be as rational as possible.

My understanding of this hobby, or passion is that I want to be
convinced, or fooled by myaudioreproduction system, and believe that
I could be witnessing theoriginalaudioevent.

You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many
$$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert
your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its
vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet
and upon the arm rests of your chair.

[Skeeter]

You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many
$$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert
your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its
vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet
and upon the arm rests of your chair.

Hi Norman,

I don't believe that simply $$$ spent in the pursuit of creating a
"believable audio illusion" has much correlation with favourable
results. In fact, I do believe that simply throwing $$$ into a sound
reproduction system hardly ever yields impressive results in terms of
creating convincing illusions of sonic events.

Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations
through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the
arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a
modest setup.

Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details
and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is
where I find most reproductions fail to convince.

Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything
sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I
primarily draw my reference from. Recording nature sounds, urban
sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human
voice. Never using effects of any kind except what the room or
natural sound stage offers.

I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live
music in any form as a reference. Microphones, pickups, and
loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. The
result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original
and reproduced sonic event. It can be enjoyable for me, but not as
reference material.

Cheers,
Skeeter

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote
(in article ):

You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many
$$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert
your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its
vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet
and upon the arm rests of your chair.

Hi Norman,

I don't believe that simply $$$ spent in the pursuit of creating a
"believable audio illusion" has much correlation with favourable
results. In fact, I do believe that simply throwing $$$ into a sound
reproduction system hardly ever yields impressive results in terms of
creating convincing illusions of sonic events.

Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations
through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the
arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a
modest setup.

Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of the things that seem
to distinguish really large, expensive speaker systems such as the MBL
X-Treme and The Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can
"pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to the way that a
symphony orchestra in full song can "pressurize" a concert hall. It does that
by not only moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but by
maintaining relatively flat frequency response over much of the audible
spectrum and doing so with low distortion and minimal phase anomalies.

Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details
and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is
where I find most reproductions fail to convince.

Exactly.

Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything
sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I
primarily draw my reference from. Recording nature sounds, urban
sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human
voice. Never using effects of any kind except what the room or
natural sound stage offers.

I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live
music in any form as a reference.

Oh, I agree. I don't even want to listen to it. I have stated here before
that I have walked out of (and on several occasions, demanded refunds) from
concerts where a P.A. system was employed. I realize that rock concerts
require "sound reinforcement" systems because many of their instruments are
electronic in nature and actually won't make any sound without the sound
system. But jazz ensembles, string quartets, symphony orchestras and any
other group of totally acoustic instruments are simply ruined (IMHO) by
playing through "sound reinforcement" systems.

Microphones, pickups, and
loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. The
result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original
and reproduced sonic event. It can be enjoyable for me, but not as
reference material.

It isn't enjoyable to me. Listening to music to me isn't JUST about the
performance. To me hearing live music played in real space is at least HALF
the pleasure in the experience. As far as I'm concerned, going to a live
concert and listening to the performance through a "sound reinforcement"
system is so unappealing that I feel that I would have better spent my money
on a CD of the group or works performed and listening to them on my home
audio system. I can guarantee you that this would sound better!

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote
(in article ):


snip


Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations
through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the
arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a
modest setup.

Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of the things that
seem
to distinguish really large, expensive speaker systems such as the MBL
X-Treme and The Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can
"pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to the way that a
symphony orchestra in full song can "pressurize" a concert hall. It does
that
by not only moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but by
maintaining relatively flat frequency response over much of the audible
spectrum and doing so with low distortion and minimal phase anomalies.

Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details
and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is
where I find most reproductions fail to convince.

Exactly.

snip

This is another reason multichannel sound can be satisfying for full scale
symphonic works.....if you use five full range speakers, or five subs with
satellites. Five full range speakers will boost extremely low bass by as
much as three db....orchestras sound much more lifelike with hall ambience
and this room pressurization.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote

Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of
the things that seem to distinguish really large,
expensive speaker systems such as the MBL X-Treme and The
Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can
"pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to
the way that a symphony orchestra in full song can
"pressurize" a concert hall. It does that by not only
moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but
by maintaining relatively flat frequency response over
much of the audible spectrum and doing so with low
distortion and minimal phase anomalies.

The technical specs for the Wilson Audio Alexandria include a single 13"
subwoofer per channel. The pressurizing capabilities of this driver can be
inferred pretty accurately, because due to geometric constraints, a given
diameter driver can only move so much air at the current SOTA.

I have friends whose stereos are composed of multiple woofers (i.e., 4 or
more) that are up to 18" in diameter and also reach the limits of excursion
due to geometry and the current SOTA. Obviously, they have far more
air-moving capacity by integer multiples. The upper range drivers have equal
or better pressurizing capabilities.

The point is that exceeding the performance of the Wilson Audio Alexandria
does not take $200K. $6K is more like it. Not a cheap system, but a horse of
a whole different color, economically.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Jan 24, 3:43*pm, Skeeter wrote:
You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many
$$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert
your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its
vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet
and upon the arm rests of your chair.

Hi Norman,


(snip)

Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations
through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the
arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a
modest setup.


I hope you are not going to next tell me that you can achieve the same
using headphones. With loudspeakers are you going to have to sit in
that old "sweet spot" to achieve this effect? If the diodes on my
Brystons turn orange and flash red, I make a dash for the volume
control and check the fuses on my speakers.
If I were to attempt achieving such an effect, I would have a complete
melt-down.

Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details
and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... *This is
where I find most reproductions fail to convince.

Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything
sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I
primarily draw my reference from. *Recording nature sounds, urban
sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human
voice. *Never using effects of any kind except what the room or
natural sound stage offers.


Agreed in totality.

I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live
music in any form as a reference. *Microphones, pickups, and
loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. *The
result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original
and reproduced sonic event. *It can be enjoyable for me, but not as
reference material.

Ditto, agreed again.

Cheers,
Skeeter

Norman

[Skeeter]

(verbage for context)

Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations
through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the
arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a
modest setup.

I hope you are not going to next tell me that you can achieve the same
using headphones. With loudspeakers are you going to have to sit in
that old "sweet spot" to achieve this effect? If the diodes on my
Brystons turn orange and flash red, I make a dash for the volume
control and check the fuses on my speakers.
If I were to attempt achieving such an effect, I would have a complete
melt-down.


Hi Norman,

No, I am not going to sell you on a set of headphones. You would just
have to research a more efficient reproducer of mid and deep bass to
achieve the physical effects possible from your Bryston's output
capabilities. I'm not saying that you may be satisfied with the
realism of sonic details that results from this endeavour. Opinions
will vary. We each have our own preferences, budgets, and existing
investments in gear. There are always limiting factors in every
probable possibility.

I do however enjoy headphone listening at times. A quality set of
electrostatic headphones can be a revelation of sonic details present
in source material. Not in a realistic sound stage however, and not
with any tactile low end realism of course.

It does appear that you are enjoying your setup despite it's
liabilities, and that is what the results of this hobby should center
upon.

Cheers,
Skeeter