1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences is a claim that is on its
face more unlikely than that there are actual differences, and so THAT
assertion must be proved FIRST, before any METHOD for testing it can
be proposed. In other words, it requires a higher standard of proof
than that there simply is a difference.

2. Those who claim 'bias' can cause aural phenomena must clarify what
they mean by 'bias'.

3. It must be demonstrable that DBT IS the best way to test for
'bias'.

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right? All we really need to do then
is rig a test for suggestibility and select those who are least
suggestible. Once we have a good sample of low-suggestibility folks,
then maybe we can make some progress in even beginning to test for
'bias'.

I am a skeptic.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

2. Those who claim 'bias' can cause aural phenomena must clarify what
they mean by 'bias'.

Any factors not related to physical sound.

3. It must be demonstrable that DBT IS the best way to test for 'bias'.

A blind test is the _only_ way to exclude non-sound factors.
If you can think of another then tell us.

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

The question of how non-sound factors work is interesting, but such
knowledge is not required to show that non-sound factors are at work.

All we really need to do then is rig a test for suggestibility and select
those who are least suggestible. Once we have a good sample of
low-suggestibility folks, then maybe we can make some progress
in even beginning to test for 'bias'.

No, everyone responds to non-sound factors. Just have an honest try,
you will find out for yourself.

I am a skeptic.

If you are a sceptic then go and find out for yourself.
I bet you will be surprised.

Peter.
--

On 15 Oct 2003 22:08:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences is a claim that is on its
face more unlikely than that there are actual differences, and so THAT
assertion must be proved FIRST, before any METHOD for testing it can
be proposed. In other words, it requires a higher standard of proof
than that there simply is a difference.

2. Those who claim 'bias' can cause aural phenomena must clarify what
they mean by 'bias'.

Any factors not related to the physical soundfield.

3. It must be demonstrable that DBT IS the best way to test for
'bias'.

Any unsighted test will do, a DBT simply removes the possibility of
conscious or unconscious information transfer from the tester.

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

Not necessarily, the mechanisms of bias are complex.

All we really need to do then
is rig a test for suggestibility and select those who are least
suggestible. Once we have a good sample of low-suggestibility folks,
then maybe we can make some progress in even beginning to test for
'bias'.

You've already been told of the classic test - the 'false sighted'
test where nothing is actually changed when the audience is informed
that a switch has been made. Audiences still report 'hearing'
significant differences.

I am a skeptic.

No, you're not, or you would have tried a blind test to see if it
makes a difference. You have not, so you are *not* a skeptic. A true
skeptic does not take *anyone* on trust - even himself.

BTW, a *real* skeptic believes that certainty of knowledge is
unattainable, so your inistsence that what you heard *must* be true is
in fact the antithesis of skepticism.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Peter Irwin wrote:

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

2. Those who claim 'bias' can cause aural phenomena must clarify what
they mean by 'bias'.

Any factors not related to physical sound.

3. It must be demonstrable that DBT IS the best way to test for 'bias'.

A blind test is the _only_ way to exclude non-sound factors.
If you can think of another then tell us.

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

The question of how non-sound factors work is interesting, but such
knowledge is not required to show that non-sound factors are at work.

Indeed. In 1991 at an AES Convention I presented a paper ("Can You Trust Your
Ears" Preprint 3177) describing the results of a 31 subject experiment where
subjects were asked to express a preference for one of two 10-30 second sound
presentations. The answer sheet asked "Did You Prefer A or B or No
Preference"with a space for comment son describing what they heard.

Each subject had 10 A/B trials (all done singly with no time limits.) Of the
10, half were exactly the same as each other and half had either A or B 1-dB
higher in level.

Not surprisingly subejcts tended to "prefer" the louder alternatives. But even
when the presentations were the same subjects reported a "preference" for one
or the other over 3/4 of the time. Even more interestngly some of them recorded
notes in great detail describing differences in tonal balance, vague sound
quality terms and even tempo.

Loudness differences were never mentioned even though that was the ONLY thing
that ever changed.

Human bias mechanisms?
Loudness/Quality confusion. Strong tendency to report identical sound
presentations as being different; especially when the conditions (test, A/B
pairings, questions asking for Preference) suggest differences are expected.


All we really need to do then is rig a test for suggestibility and select
those who are least suggestible. Once we have a good sample of
low-suggestibility folks, then maybe we can make some progress
in even beginning to test for 'bias'.

It's known to exist. I'll bet that even you have experienced it. How many of us
have NEVER listened to how wonderful that last
tweak was, only to find that it's not even in the system.

In my case, after having such experiences a couple times, I decided to look in
the mirror and INVESTIGATE.

No, everyone responds to non-sound factors. Just have an honest try,
you will find out for yourself.

I am a skeptic.

If you are a sceptic then go and find out for yourself.
I bet you will be surprised.

Peter.
--


Most folks either try it and experience real learning OR simply reject the idea
and practice looking the other way when confronted with the "wrong" component
experience.

Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.


2. Those who claim 'bias' can cause aural phenomena must clarify what
they mean by 'bias'.

Any factors not related to physical sound.

'non-sound factors'?

3. It must be demonstrable that DBT IS the best way to test for 'bias'.

A blind test is the _only_ way to exclude non-sound factors.
If you can think of another then tell us.

But it's not a test.

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

The question of how non-sound factors work is interesting, but such
knowledge is not required to show that non-sound factors are at work.

The problem of consistency in such hypothetical 'non-sound factors' in
various products is prima facia evidence against it.

All we really need to do then is rig a test for suggestibility and select
those who are least suggestible. Once we have a good sample of
low-suggestibility folks, then maybe we can make some progress
in even beginning to test for 'bias'.

No, everyone responds to non-sound factors. Just have an honest try,
you will find out for yourself.

This has to be tested.

I am a skeptic.

If you are a sceptic then go and find out for yourself.
I bet you will be surprised.

Peter.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

It's more than plain suggestibility, it's the way our brain works.
There are numerous optical illusions known, Escher has been one
of the more recent painters who demonstrated them. You may have
a look at

http://eluzions.com/Illusions/Art/more.shtml

There is no reason to expect the ear to be free of acoustical
illusions.

I am a skeptic.

That's right. Nobody should expect the reality to exist in the
way we perceive it.

Norbert

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.

We can't simply wish away expectation/confirmation BIAS, sir (to name
one kind of bias). If we could, science would be ever so much easier.
If you have devised a means to do so without resorting to DBT-type
protocols, please report it...there could be a Nobel in your future.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...


So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.

We can't simply wish away expectation/confirmation BIAS, sir (to name
one kind of bias). If we could, science would be ever so much easier.
If you have devised a means to do so without resorting to DBT-type
protocols, please report it...there could be a Nobel in your future.


You haven't established or quantified 'bias' at all. You've simply
***asserted*** its existence and potentency. I know of no such thing.
I was not, and never have been 'biased' to hear what I cannot hear. I
listened to many speakers, cables, CD players, amplifers, etc, before
making each purchase. No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another. Each sounded different, and
repeated trials yielded the same sort of impression of each one,
regardless of my personal opinions of the matter. Some that I
**expected*** to sound better (based on advertising claims) didn't.
They sounded worse. That cannot be ***bias***.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with
'non-sound factors'.

Bias is a good word, but sometimes people think it suggests
a lack of fairmindedness, and I don't mean that at all.
Bias in this context means anything that can affect the result,
but is not the thing you wanted to test.

I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be.

That is an interesting topic, but you do not need to know
about all of the non-sound factors to design a blind test which
precludes their influence.

The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors'
to be at work. That's my claim.

No, blind testing is necessary to exclude factors other than
physical sound differences whether or not you expect the physical
differences to have an audible effect.

A blind test is the only way to exclude non-sound factors.
If you can think of another then tell us.

But it's not a test.

Sure it is. What do you mean exactly?

The problem of consistency in such hypothetical 'non-sound
factors' in various products is prima facia evidence against
it.

Why?

Peter.
--

Norbert Hahn wrote:

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

4. If 'bias' is due to suggestibility, there must be some correlation
between suggestibility and bias, right?

It's more than plain suggestibility, it's the way our brain works.
There are numerous optical illusions known, Escher has been one
of the more recent painters who demonstrated them. You may have
a look at

http://eluzions.com/Illusions/Art/more.shtml

That's a good one. Others are tjhe Muller-Lyer lines and photos of the St Louis
Arch. The key idea here is common human perceptual bias even when the physical
constructs are measured.

For example even when the length of the Muller-Lyer lines are measured they
still "look" different to the subject, meaning that that the bias cannot be
controlled by will power.

Some audio illusions hold the same power if there's an acoustic basis; we still
"hear" the phantom even after we know there is no sound being generated from
the apparent source. However this occurs with audio enthusiasts maybe because
they have 'learned' to hear the magic and there are actual acoustical sound
pressure changes with a phantom image.

But "amp" and "wire" sound no longer can be resolved when other confounding
factors are removed. which is most likely because there is NO acoustic
difference


There is no reason to expect the ear to be free of acoustical
illusions.

How about the "mind?"

I am a skeptic.

That's right. Nobody should expect the reality to exist in the
way we perceive it.

Norbert

The existance of auditory illusion and expectation should be commonly known to
any child who has a mother that could apparently "hear" around corners.

How about those things that go "bump" in the night? Ever 'sensed' when a subway
was close? Was that "sound?" One night my wife damn near slapped herself to
death when my nose/breathing made mosquito-like sound.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...


So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.

We can't simply wish away expectation/confirmation BIAS, sir (to name
one kind of bias). If we could, science would be ever so much easier.
If you have devised a means to do so without resorting to DBT-type
protocols, please report it...there could be a Nobel in your future.


You haven't established or quantified 'bias' at all. You've simply
***asserted*** its existence and potentency. I know of no such thing.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself. Or even jsut consider:
DBTs aren't confined to psychoacoustics research. They're commonly
employed in drug testing, for example. Is that because bias has been
'quantified' , or because it has simple been shown to *exist* ?

I was not, and never have been 'biased' to hear what I cannot hear.
I
listened to many speakers, cables, CD players, amplifers, etc, before
making each purchase. No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.


No level matching, no sighted bias controls = no good data.
By the GIGO rule.


Each sounded different, and
repeated trials yielded the same sort of impression of each one,
regardless of my personal opinions of the matter. Some that I
**expected*** to sound better (based on advertising claims) didn't.
They sounded worse. That cannot be ***bias***.

It most certainly can -- we are biased to perceive *difference*,
and once that happens, whether you decide it's 'better' or 'worse'
is a secondary matter.
Please do some reading on the subject,and get back to us.


--
-S.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.

We can't simply wish away expectation/confirmation BIAS, sir (to name
one kind of bias). If we could, science would be ever so much easier.
If you have devised a means to do so without resorting to DBT-type
protocols, please report it...there could be a Nobel in your future.

I can't believe I'm replying to this, but what the heck, why not.

I wrote a document (I'm now a technical writer by trade) that said
(expurgated to keep my butt from being fired):

"...an enhancement to transfer ziggles from one ligarel nuberfrick to
another."

Now, this contruct "from one to another" is so blatantly freaking
obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintence with the English
language, that my co-writer and I were amazed, aghast, and astounded
to find out that a client read that to mean "from one ligarel
nuberfrick to a werfitzle nuberfrick"! Who cared that werfitzle
nuberfricks were never mentioned, the enhancement had absolutely
NOTHING to do with werfitzle nuberfricks, and it wasn't even directed
to the werfitzle nuberfrick audience!

The client wanted so bad to transfer between ligarels and werfitzles
that it perverted even the most basic of things into something that
it's not.

Sometimes when you want to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't want to hear a difference, you won't. I don't care how
careful your precious test is set up, it's only as good as the stupid
test animal taking it.

Let's also remember that five or ten individuals do not make up a
statistically valid sample.

We now return you to your regularily scheduled argument.

Tom

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 15 Oct 2003 22:08:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

All we really need to do then
is rig a test for suggestibility and select those who are least
suggestible. Once we have a good sample of low-suggestibility folks,
then maybe we can make some progress in even beginning to test for
'bias'.

You've already been told of the classic test - the 'false sighted'
test where nothing is actually changed when the audience is informed
that a switch has been made. Audiences still report 'hearing'
significant differences.

I am a skeptic.

No, you're not, or you would have tried a blind test to see if it
makes a difference. You have not, so you are *not* a skeptic. A true
skeptic does not take *anyone* on trust - even himself.

BTW, a *real* skeptic believes that certainty of knowledge is
unattainable, so your inistsence that what you heard *must* be true is
in fact the antithesis of skepticism.

Once again we are treated to my favorite irony on RAHE - the supposedly
cold-hearted "objectivists" are the ones who recognize that listeners are
human beings subject to mood, whim, and emotion, while the sensitive
artistic "subjectivists" relentlessly insist that we (or they, at least) are
nothing more than perfect spectrum analyzers.

- Gary Rosen

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

Thomas Krueger wrote:

Sometimes when you want to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't want to hear a difference, you won't. I don't care how
careful your precious test is set up, it's only as good as the stupid
test animal taking it.

Sometimes when you expect to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't consciously *expect* to hear a difference.

Sometimes these differences don't really exist.

That's why controls are necessary.

Let's also remember that five or ten individuals do not make up a
statistically valid sample.

Let's remember that the existence of bias, and the need to control
for it, has been recognized by scientist for decades.



--
-S.

"Thomas Krueger" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote in message
...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

1. The claim that 'bias' is MORE likely than actual differences in
equipment to cause perceived differences

This appears to be a strawman. Both actual physical differences in
sound
and other non-sound factors can make a difference in how things
sound.
The question as to whether sound or non-sound factors are more
likely
to be the cause of a difference heard is not relevant to the need to
distinguish between sound and non-sound factors.

So, you'd prefer not to use the term 'bias', but stick with 'non-sound
factors'. I like that, but the problem is isolating what these
'factors' may be. The simple fact is that it must be established that
'non-sound factors' are MORE LIKELY than 'sound factors' to be at
work. That's my claim.

We can't simply wish away expectation/confirmation BIAS, sir (to name
one kind of bias). If we could, science would be ever so much easier.
If you have devised a means to do so without resorting to DBT-type
protocols, please report it...there could be a Nobel in your future.

I can't believe I'm replying to this, but what the heck, why not.

I wrote a document (I'm now a technical writer by trade) that said
(expurgated to keep my butt from being fired):

"...an enhancement to transfer ziggles from one ligarel nuberfrick to
another."

Now, this contruct "from one to another" is so blatantly freaking
obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintence with the English
language, that my co-writer and I were amazed, aghast, and astounded
to find out that a client read that to mean "from one ligarel
nuberfrick to a werfitzle nuberfrick"! Who cared that werfitzle
nuberfricks were never mentioned, the enhancement had absolutely
NOTHING to do with werfitzle nuberfricks, and it wasn't even directed
to the werfitzle nuberfrick audience!

The client wanted so bad to transfer between ligarels and werfitzles
that it perverted even the most basic of things into something that
it's not.

Sometimes when you want to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't want to hear a difference, you won't. I don't care how
careful your precious test is set up, it's only as good as the stupid
test animal taking it.

Let's also remember that five or ten individuals do not make up a
statistically valid sample.

We now return you to your regularily scheduled argument.

Tom

Yes, but in this case what Michael Scarpitti said originally was that he
tested three different products (sequentially over time) that claimed to
affect sound. He found the first two to do so (whether due to expectation
bias or not) but found the third to have no affect whatsoever. He asked
simply "what bias mechanism can explain this". He has not received a reply.

I was in a similar situation two years ago when explaining that I had bought
an more expensive pair of speaker cable from the company making the cable I
was using, and contrary to liking them even more, hated them and eventually
sold them. My going-in expectation was that I would like them better. In
this case, a sophisticated explanation was proffered: I was suffering
buyer-remorse. Well, at least that was a credible suggestion. However, I
had purchased the cables used at a very good price and it was not a
*significant* purchase against my budget. So in this case, buyer remorse
was an unlikely culprit. But at least it could have been.

But Michael has received no, zilch, zip feedback that would explain his
"findings". Just simply assertions that it must have been bias and
references to past scholarly works. Michael *may have* heard the first
incorrectly He may have heard the latter correctly. But he is asking why
bias should operate in one case, and not in the other. It is a legitimate
question, and one that requires thoughtful answers, not just assertions or
posturing.

Since the "objectivists" here are not helping, let me offer a possible
explanation. Since the "green pen" was ballyhooed in the audiophile press,
the original "hearings" may have been influenced accordingly. Same for the
green mat. However, since the liquid only had the manufacturers assertions
to back it up, it may have had less external bias influencing what Michael
was hearing and therefore he got a more accurate reading.

On the other hand, other "real" factors may have been at work. For example,
where different machines used at different times for the three variables. I
have never given much credence to green pens, but I have used cd rings. My
findings suggest that on some machines they seem to make a difference, on
others not. This was true when I first tried them, and it seems true today
(I still have several machines). The difference goes away with later
machines, and when the machines are fed through a jitter-buster such as the
DTI Pro. So I suspect that the rings do somehow change the sound, and that
it is jitter related. I'm not asserting it as a fact, and it is a moot
point since I no longer use the older machine much.

However, it is possible that the green pens did somehow damp disks on older
machines with inferior jitter control, whereas the confirming dbts were done
on newer machines or machines with external jitter-busters that wiped out
the difference.

My point here is that simply to dismiss the man's claims, to insist that the
only mechanism must be some unspecified "bias" is not responsible science.
It is useful to quote sources for study; it would be even more useful to
help him think through might be responsible for his observations. Remember,
their is a large difference between: "sighted testing may be subject to
biases" and "all listening information derived from sighted testing is
meaningless unless confirmed by (fill in the blank)."

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Thomas Krueger wrote:

Sometimes when you want to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't want to hear a difference, you won't. I don't care how
careful your precious test is set up, it's only as good as the stupid
test animal taking it.

Sometimes when you expect to hear a difference, you will. Sometimes when
you don't consciously *expect* to hear a difference.

...you will (is what I meant)





Sometimes these differences don't really exist.

That's why controls are necessary.

Let's also remember that five or ten individuals do not make up a
statistically valid sample.

Let's remember that the existence of bias, and the need to control
for it, has been recognized by scientist for decades.



--
-S.

(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.

The power amps differed in generally obvious ways. No two sounded very
much alike at all. The Harmon Kardon was garbage. I ended up with the
Denon POA-1500. It was the best overall, except for the Sony TA-N88B,
which kept failing.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.


I've never heard of a transformer for Stax Lambdas and I couldn't find
anything but direct drive amps for lambdas on the Stax website. I
have lambda pro, and lambda signature --- and am interested in the
transformer you use. Could you give me a link? Thx. Mark

Michael Scarpitti writes:
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.

Hold on now; that means that the amplifiers in question were hardly
loaded at all. That is a perfectly terrible way of testing
amplifiers. Unless, of course, all that you want an amplifier to do
is drive headphones.

And how did you set gain structure?

Andrew.

(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.


I've never heard of a transformer for Stax Lambdas and I couldn't find
anything but direct drive amps for lambdas on the Stax website. I
have lambda pro, and lambda signature --- and am interested in the
transformer you use. Could you give me a link? Thx. Mark

HUH? I own the SRD-7. You can use any Stax 'normal' headphone with it.
My Lambda's are 'normal' bias ones. With the SRD-7 Pro, you can use
the newer 'pro' series. The SRD- transformers simply attach to the
power outputs of your power amp like speakers.

wrote in message news:tKYkb.601524$cF.265058@rwcrnsc53...
Michael Scarpitti writes:
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message ...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message ...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.

Hold on now; that means that the amplifiers in question were hardly
loaded at all. That is a perfectly terrible way of testing
amplifiers. Unless, of course, all that you want an amplifier to do
is drive headphones.

Well, I do USE the Stax...

I listened through my speakers, too. The results were comparable, but
the Stax had far greater resolution.


And how did you set gain structure?

Andrew.

Yes, Mr. Scarpitti is telling you right. For a long time
Lamda's came with the SRD step up transformer. You
connected it to your power amp. Very nice portable way
to audition amps away from home.

Also the early Koss Electrostatic phones could be used
the same way.

Dennis

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:9j%kb.601721$cF.266562@rwcrnsc53...
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message
...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
...
(Mark Wilkinson) wrote in message
...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
...

No two amplifiers sound alike: sometimes they
sounded ***greatly*** different. I simply hooked up one after
another
to my Stax Lambda's one after another.

How did you hook up an amp to your Stax? Aren't they electrostatic
and come with a direct drive amp of their own?

If what you did was connect the output of various amps to the input
of
the Stax amp, how did you set gain structure?

The Stax are perfect for testing amps. They are powered directly from
the power amp through a transformer.


I've never heard of a transformer for Stax Lambdas and I couldn't find
anything but direct drive amps for lambdas on the Stax website. I
have lambda pro, and lambda signature --- and am interested in the
transformer you use. Could you give me a link? Thx. Mark

HUH? I own the SRD-7. You can use any Stax 'normal' headphone with it.
My Lambda's are 'normal' bias ones. With the SRD-7 Pro, you can use
the newer 'pro' series. The SRD- transformers simply attach to the
power outputs of your power amp like speakers.

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
Yes, Mr. Scarpitti is telling you right. For a long time
Lamda's came with the SRD step up transformer. You
connected it to your power amp. Very nice portable way
to audition amps away from home.



Thx Dennis,

If you or anybody has seen one of these trannys floating around, I'd
like to get one. How do the lambdas get dc grid voltage when you use
one? Do you end up having to use two devices hooked to the 'phones?
Mark

The SRD7 unit plugged into the wall. It supplied the grid voltage.
If I recall it was around 380 volts, now bumped up to 500 volts
or so in new model Stax. The signal from your power amp
simply went through step up trannies just like it does with
electrostatic speakers.

I don't know if Stax still makes that version of the unit. They
may. There are some grey markets sources for such.
Look on www.head-fi.com and I think a couple of those
sources are talked about there.

Now the early Koss ESP phones were real interesting. They
had step up transformers and also could be plugged into the
wall. A second option was not to plug them into the wall.
But let rectifiers in the adapter unit generate the bias voltage
from the power amp music signal. It actually worked pretty
well, though didn't sound quite as good as being powered
off the mains. And for a time Stax made an adapter that
worked only this way.

The Koss and Stax phones were of similar quality, but very
different character. The Koss were very warm, musical and
still more detailed than most phones. While the Stax was
light, lightning fast on transients, a bit more subjectively
transparent. Both had pretty good low bass such as it is
in headphones though the Koss was a heavier sound in general.

Dennis

"Mark Wilkinson" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
Yes, Mr. Scarpitti is telling you right. For a long time
Lamda's came with the SRD step up transformer. You
connected it to your power amp. Very nice portable way
to audition amps away from home.



Thx Dennis,

If you or anybody has seen one of these trannys floating around, I'd
like to get one. How do the lambdas get dc grid voltage when you use
one? Do you end up having to use two devices hooked to the 'phones?
Mark

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:50:53 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

The SRD7 unit plugged into the wall. It supplied the grid voltage.
If I recall it was around 380 volts, now bumped up to 500 volts
or so in new model Stax. The signal from your power amp
simply went through step up trannies just like it does with
electrostatic speakers.


My step-up transformer (SRD6B?) takes its grid voltage from the source
and does not need to be plugged into the wall. It takes some time to
(30 seconds or so) "warm up", though.

Per.



"Mark Wilkinson" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
Yes, Mr. Scarpitti is telling you right. For a long time
Lamda's came with the SRD step up transformer. You
connected it to your power amp. Very nice portable way
to audition amps away from home.



Thx Dennis,

If you or anybody has seen one of these trannys floating around, I'd
like to get one. How do the lambdas get dc grid voltage when you use
one? Do you end up having to use two devices hooked to the 'phones?
Mark

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
Yes, Mr. Scarpitti is telling you right. For a long time
Lamda's came with the SRD step up transformer. You
connected it to your power amp. Very nice portable way
to audition amps away from home.


There were variants: SRD-7SB did not require AC connection (Self-Biasing)

SRD-7 Pro was the 580 volt version for the 'pro' phones.

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...

My step-up transformer (SRD6B?) takes its grid voltage from the
source
and does not need to be plugged into the wall. It takes some time to
(30 seconds or so) "warm up", though.

Perhaps I don't fully understand. You're saying that the bias voltage
is supplied by the output of the amplifier? What happens if the music
starts off softly? You hear nothing?

Norm Strong

Haven't used the Stax version only the Koss.

But yes, as he mentions it takes a bit to warm up.
Partly because it is charging. And large bass notes
following longish periods of very low level music
could leave it 'starved' for charge just a bit.

Though it generally worked without trouble better
than I would have imagined.

Dennis

"normanstrong" wrote in message
...
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...

My step-up transformer (SRD6B?) takes its grid voltage from the
source
and does not need to be plugged into the wall. It takes some time to
(30 seconds or so) "warm up", though.

Perhaps I don't fully understand. You're saying that the bias voltage
is supplied by the output of the amplifier? What happens if the music
starts off softly? You hear nothing?

Norm Strong

Per Stromgren wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:50:53 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

The SRD7 unit plugged into the wall. It supplied the grid voltage.
If I recall it was around 380 volts, now bumped up to 500 volts
or so in new model Stax. The signal from your power amp
simply went through step up trannies just like it does with
electrostatic speakers.


My step-up transformer (SRD6B?) takes its grid voltage from the source
and does not need to be plugged into the wall. It takes some time to
(30 seconds or so) "warm up", though.

Just to clarify to everyone, because it's not clear that everyone
understands what's going on here, there are TWO functions that are
being somewhat intermingled he

1. The "step up" transformers job is to bridge the otherwise large
mismatch in impedance between what the amplifier expects to see
and what the diaphragms of the transducers really are. This is
PURELY a signal function, and, assuming the step-up transformer
is designed proeprly, the amplifier WILL be loaded correctly
(or reasonably so, depending upon the actual impedance presented
by the transducers).

2. There is a second function, which is the requirement of supplying
a polarization voltage to the transducers. This voltage can range
from several dozen to a few hundred volts, is VERY low current
(it's essentially a static charge), and provides the essential
bias to ensure proper (as opposed to rectified, i.e., highly
distorted) acoustic output.

There are TWO common ways of supplying that polarization voltage:

a. A separate power supply, often AC driven, that might physically
live in the same box as the step-up transformer

b. By rectifying, multiplying and storing (in capacitors of suitable
size) a small portion of the musical signal itself. Yes, it uses
the same step-up transformer, but it is still a separate function
in principle from the impedance conversion. It's just that you
happen to have a convenient high-voltage (not well regulated,
to be sure :-) AC signal as a power source. Stealing a small
portion of it for the polarization voltage is a viable method.