Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.


As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
"predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
Instruments."

In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.

He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
Ear"?

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?

  #2   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Yes is interesting, dare we say it would also be interesting to do a dbt
using the material he used? All we have at best is an anecdotal example
which would be better supported with controled testing. All that is
required is to have one cd from the "good" category and another from the
"bad" and let him rip, as long as he doesn't know which is which, as he
did in the article. Based on the article, we don't know with any certainty
if all he put himself through was a waiste of time or if it had any
reality outside of his self reported experience of it. A more accurate
subject line, based soley on his report, would be "reported perception vs.
reported perception".

Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

Harry. Lavo
"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington


  #3   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.


Well, Harry, your post can be taken as existance proof that the
"predictable responses" have ALREADY begun...

:-)

  #4   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Dick Pierce wrote:
He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.


There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.


But that was NEVER DONE!


So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.


Indeed. In the *only* measurement he did, Mr. Nichols found that the 'bad
sounding' and 'good sounding' versions were bit-perfect copies. Assuming
jitter is the problem, does that mean that the computer CDR drive he used
to transfer the tracks to hard drive for analysis corrected the jitter
problem, or does it mean that jitter does not change the bits? (Or does it
mean some other thing I'm not thinking of?)

--
-S.

  #5   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
et...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.


As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
"predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
Instruments."

In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.

He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
Ear"?

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

So, could it be measured? I'm sure, if one knew what could cause the
problems in the first place and then track them down. But were the right
variables measured? Not routinely by the production engineers convinced
that "bits is bits" and if you don't measure bit errors "do we really have
to listen?" Yep, when all is said and done, there is no substitute....at
least until one has proven that *all* the audible variables are under
control.

p.s. the "they weren't dbt'd and probably the differences were imagined"
chorus has started. But I am pleased that your are focused on the measuremen
ts, because that was my own focus. As I am sure you will yourself agree,
sometimes their *are* large differences so apparent to a group of trained
people that the differences can be accepted as a given. In the antidotes
portrayed, there were tests and comparisons done which resulted in a "no
difference" when it would have been quite possible to have been biased in
favor of finding a difference...for that would allow the problem to be
solved. Instead, "no difference" was declared and the search continued. I
frankly am convinced that in this case the differences were real, and am
more interested in the QA measurement scenario.



  #6   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).


Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John Eargle's
(IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived) association
with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the
problems.

These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary status.

  #7   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:4tLPa.37141$GL4.8369@rwcrnsc53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

..large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all

using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point

where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure

those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too,

at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as

measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles

for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).


Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John

Eargle's
(IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived)

association
with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.


Oops, my bad! I did make that mistake and in retrospect I know better.
But glad we agree on mr. Eargle's credentials and reputation...although I
might put Marc Aubort up there with him.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know

a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a

large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'

sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,

relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then

found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had

'fixed' the
problems.

These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary

status.


No doubt people can be fooled but that wasn't the case in the article I
referenced.

  #8   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out? Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?
By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis

_________________________________________________ ____

__________________________________________________ __---
But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
the
problems.

  #9   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.


No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as is not
new, Chief Engineer of Denon.


Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.


It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch for
its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his anecdote
either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has related
similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.


Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out?


'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
would have apologized. Probably not

Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?


I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was nothing
wrong with the original product.

By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis


Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
found none and satisfied a customer.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
the
problems.

  #10   Report Post  
Dennis Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

Harry's comment about John Eargle falls under a mistake.
Doesn't appear to be made up, simply a mistake.

Dennis

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote:

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.


No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as

is not
new, Chief Engineer of Denon.


Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.


It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch

for
its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his

anecdote
either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has

related
similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.


Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out?


'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
would have apologized. Probably not

Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?


I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was

nothing
wrong with the original product.

By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis


Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
found none and satisfied a customer.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know

a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a

large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'

sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,

relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had

'fixed'
the
problems.





  #11   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.


You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?

--
-S.
  #12   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Dennis Moore wrote:
Mr. Nousaine,


Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.


Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.


Hardly. If you like, I will seek out the online diary
of a recording engineer, where he recounts the commonplace
occurrence of 'sweetener' knobs in control rooms, which
exist ONLY to placate annoying record producers looking for
that 'extra something'.

The knob isn't connected to anyting, but careful
adjustment, in sight of said producer, accompanied
by asking 'Does that sound better?" seems to always
do the trick.

IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery
to studios, with a knowing wink.

--
-S.

  #13   Report Post  
Aaron J. Grier
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Steven Sullivan wrote:
IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery to studios,
with a knowing wink.


Funk Logic: http://www.funklogic.com/

my favorite is the palindrometer:
http://www.funklogic.com/palindrometer.htm

but the Digilog Dynamicator and Algorhythmic Prosecutor are amusing as
well:
http://www.funklogic.com/dd301.htm
http://www.funklogic.com/ap302.htm

for those who master digitally, there is the masterizer plug-in:
http://www.funklogic.com/mastererizer.htm

I'm sure there have to be more.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov

  #14   Report Post  
Daniel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.


You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?


Care to name a few?
  #15   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.


You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?


Care to name a few?


I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?

Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.



  #16   Report Post  
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe
$3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name
indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be
ordered)!

-MIKE

  #18   Report Post  
Daniel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?


Care to name a few?


I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?


Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.


Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.


Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.
  #19   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

In article YNARa.74595$GL4.18651@rwcrnsc53,
---MIKE--- wrote:
Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe
$3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name
indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be
ordered)!


Uh, unfortunately, there was (is?) a real product called "CD
Toplight" which is precisely that. Additionally some CD
manufacturers had CD's with pre-printed green edges.

And it all started in rec.audio some years ago as an April
Fool's joke.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

  #20   Report Post  
Rich Andrews
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

(Daniel) wrote in :

Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?


Care to name a few?


I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any*
ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?


Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.


Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.


Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."

Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Technology and the Future"



  #21   Report Post  
Penury
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Hi Gang:
For one person's (Lynn Olson) take on the "Ears vs. Instruments"
subject check the URL:
http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
Make sense ? Or is it blasphemy to prefer tubes ? The sand vs.
glass debate aside, the approach on seeking better measurments makes
some sense I think.
Comments ?

-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web pages at:
http://www.wmeckle.com
  #22   Report Post  
Penury
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Hi Gang:
For one person's (Lynn Olson) take on the "Ears vs. Instruments"
subject check the URL:
http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
Make sense ? Or is it blasphemy to prefer tubes ? The sand vs.
glass debate aside, the approach on seeking better measurments makes
some sense I think.
Comments ?

-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web pages at:
http://www.wmeckle.com
  #23   Report Post  
Daniel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Rich Andrews wrote in message .net...
(Daniel) wrote in :

Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?


Care to name a few?

I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any*
ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?


Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.


Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.


Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference
between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r


I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.

  #24   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

(Daniel) wrote:

methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference


between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and

without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r


I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.


OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any
one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device
operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
reverberant environment?

If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to
ask for verification.
  #25   Report Post  
Daniel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Daniel) wrote:

methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference


between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and

without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r


I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.


OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any
one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device
operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
reverberant environment?

If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to
ask for verification.


You keep trying to drag me into an argument and I don't want to argue.
I'm not in disagreement with either of you on the issue of wire.

The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.

I didn't say word one about amps.

All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.

Here. Read the original text. In case you can't tell, what with all
these layers of quotes, what I said were "Care to name a few?" and
then the two paragraphs beginning "Um, nope..."

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.

Original text:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather
dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements
found every month in audio magazines?

Care to name a few?


I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later.

But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising
does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads
for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein?


Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm
happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman
*swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going
to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily
ever after" cable.

SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s.

I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that
*look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose
a piece of equipment.


Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which
presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy.
For example

http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp

Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.



  #26   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
specs.

Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in
his time?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Daniel) wrote:

methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really
audible.

Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with
me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team.

I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience
is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me
to death.


Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of

a
discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The

difference

between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and

without
data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at
http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true.

r


I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount
mathematic anything. I just don't care about it.

There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave
instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah.
I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and
comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science.
I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand.

Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into
one). None exists.


OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one,

any
one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent

device
operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally
reverberant environment?

If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly

going to
ask for verification.


  #27   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.


I didn't say word one about amps.


All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.


Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.


Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?

  #28   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Wylie Williams wrote:
Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
specs.


Was he right?


Most of the time, he probably was.
  #29   Report Post  
Daniel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03...
Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.


I didn't say word one about amps.


All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.


Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.


Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?


I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

Thanks, in any case.
  #31   Report Post  
All Ears
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck"
This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.

BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a
well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"

KE

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Wylie Williams wrote:
Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that

any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
specs.


Was he right?


Most of the time, he probably was.


  #32   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03...
Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds
any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different
speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of
very revealing B&Ws.


I didn't say word one about amps.


All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven
Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I
wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to
taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do
and don't believe.


Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the
ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy
of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime,
you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers,
one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com
How many examples will you require?

I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my
magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide
some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I
would still like to know.


Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for
my educational efforts, I wonder?


I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps,
speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when
it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.


OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't
seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible
for speakers to sound very different from each other.

If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported
claims from reviews and editorials.

--
-S.

  #33   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:34:46 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good
specs.

Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in
his time?


What, we have developed better *ears* in the last 30 years? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #34   Report Post  
All Ears
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck"
This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.


Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to
trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide
comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the
post.

BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using

a
well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"


Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone
here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections
have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why
bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it
down?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |


I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
rate the measurements, today.

Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?

I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.
I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get
a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
other rooms.

With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
harsh sound. Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are
probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.

KE

  #35   Report Post  
Norman Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Daniel" wrote in message
...


I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a
hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know
about dubious claims in these other areas.

My free advice, therefore worthless to begin with, is to get completely
involved listening to music, entirely ignoring the equipment for a *long
while*. Eventually you will be drawn back to a secondary part of the hobby,
(the equipment). Who knows, perhaps this might save you a lot of time,
effort and money in the long run. New technologies, new models of almost
everything out there, so you avoid dealing with the intervening stuff.


  #36   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

All Ears wrote:
Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck"


If you trust the specs....not always easy to do, e.g. with power ratings.

But my underlying point was that nominally competent amps *should*
sound pretty much the same, if not identical.

This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.


That's one approach. The other, and perhaps more definitive, would
be for them to really do a test where they have to 'trust their ears'.

The approach audiophiles tend to take, isntead is to , 'burn in '
the amp until total satisfaction is obtained, or to keep
trading up/sideways under the guidance of dubious magazine reviews
and marketing hype,
until total satisfaction is obtained. For awhile.

BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a
well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"


Hint: if you don't want to appear desperate, don't offer strawman
examples.

--
-S.
  #37   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

There's no problem in discarding amps that really do sound bad (and
there's plenty of them out there - the SETs, for one whole class!).


Bad is subjective. It does seem that many people prefer them in their systems.
I'm guessing they will claim they sound quite good.

The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually
*listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most
halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same.


Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp" that
may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you think
the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were actual
differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all
identicial in sound is not entirely acurate?

  #38   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

All Ears wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
All Ears wrote:
Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck"
This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and
money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to
yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be
good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained.


Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to
trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide
comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the
post.

BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using

a
well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great"


Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone
here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections
have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why
bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it
down?

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |


I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is
interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or
rate the measurements, today.


Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different?


I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio
equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test
persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented.
I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical
material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in
small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get
a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a
separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the
other rooms.


Are you sure this doesn't involve *any kind of presssure or stress*?

With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the
connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable
harsh sound.


I the cable is 'well oxidized', the connected is not likely to be 'good'.

Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better
than a lamp cord, even in a blind test.


Oh, really? Can you describe the blind tests that support this claim,
and contrast them, perhaps, with Greenhill's report?

Those who cannot hear this, are
probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord.


Those who make this claim have yet to provide evidence of its
accuracy.

--
-S.

  #39   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

C. Leeds wrote:
Nousaine wrote:


Oh that's not an issue with class-action guys. They're often more corrupt than
the guys they sue. Last year a bunch of attorneys filed a class action suit
against speaker manufacturers arguin that a 12-inch woofer that didn't have a
true 12-inch piston (just a 12-inch basket) was a fraudulent claim. And they
got a settlement mostly because the companies figured it was easier to settle
than to fight in court.


This sure sounds like urban legend. That Mr. Nousaine doesn't cite the
names of the litigants only fuels the suspicion.


Mr. Nousaine original claim - that he'd been contacted for advice by an
attorney regarding a possible class action suit against cable
manufacturers - also seems dubious. Lacking logic and without any names
or background information, these assertions sound bogus, frankly.


LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how
litigious things can get over here in the colonies.

--
-S.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I have ears on my arse! Adam Ben Nalois Audio Opinions 1 December 5th 03 07:53 AM
hearing loss info Andy Weaks Car Audio 17 August 10th 03 08:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"