Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
I get the feeling that these guys should possibly stick to the digital stuff, which they do very well If they can't understand Ohm's Law, how the hell are they going to get something substantially more complicated right? That's like saying "these guys should stick to hypersonic aerodynamics, because they can't get walking and chewing gum right." I understand your concern KE |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
In article ,
All Ears wrote: "Richard D Pierce" wrote in message .net... In article WZg1b.220954$Ho3.29139@sccrnsc03, All Ears wrote: Dick, Please excuse me my ignorence. If I were an expert, I really did not need to ask you guys. I try to understand things from what I think is logical or could be possible. But without an understanding of the basic fundamentals of the way things work, how can one sort out the real stuff from the nonsense. What we have before us is a person, you, who is tossing around technical terms like "current amplifier" or "current source" or "self-damping" used in ways that are, to be honest, nonsensical and contradictory. I understand if you expect a certain level of basic understanding from the people posting here. I expect no such thing. What I would hope is that non-experts do not pretend to be experts by pretending to make expert pronouncements. The issue is not whether non-epxerts participate: the vast majority of people here ARE NOT experts in this field. What the problem is is non-experts making statements that are outside their realm of expertise, and then complaining when an expert tells them the statements are not correct. It think RAHE should be the right place to discuss new products, ideas, theories or maybe even tries things, that would not seem logical from a conventional engineering point of view. I have no objection to the discussion of new ideas. The problem being is that, again, no disrespect intended, the ideas you have presented regarding this amplifier you've been talking about are not new, worse, they are not good. The manufacturer is presenting them as some sort of miraculuous thing, yet all the evidence points strongly in the direction of either neive incompetence or outright hucksterism. I like keeping my mind open, and maybe try to do, or even does, things people says cannot be done. Doing the "impossible" has always been one of the biggest thrills to me. Well, here some impossible things you can try: 1. Using nothing more than a compass, a drafting square, a straightedge and a pencial and all the paper you want, can you draw a square and a circle that have the same enclosed area? 2. Can you construct the 6th regular polyhedron in 3 dimension orthogonal space? Currently there are only 5: tetrahedron (4 equilateral triangles) hexahedron (6 squares) octahedron (8 equilateral triangles) dodecahedran (12 regular pentagons) icosahedron (20 equilateral triangles) These are two impossible tasks. Indeed, they have been proven impossible via rigorous proofs. Of course, nothing can replace good engineering, I respect that. What I oppose to, is some sort of general too big a loyalty towards the "rules" , which means that the engineering "one optimal solution to one particular problem" approach, should never rule out doing things differently, just to try. NO, it does NOT mean that at all. PLease, as a person who is a non-expert in the field of engineering, do not pretend to know what the rules of engineering are. The "rules" include the law of conservation of energy, the law of conservation of electrical charge (forming, for example, the basis of Kirschoff's current and voltage laws), Ohm's law, and much more. This is precisely my objection, you, as a non-expert in engineering, have now made a pronouncement about how engineering works. And you are wrong. And, if you do as you have earlier, you will refuse to accept the consequences of being wrong on an engineering point: that conclusions drawn from a wrong point are wrong. There's a tremendous amount of wiggle room in engineering, but, ultimately, behind all that room you WILL encounter a set of VERY rigid boundaries not set, as you claim, by some good-old- boy network of engineers, but by the fundamental limitations of physics itself. No amount of wishfull thinking is going to make those barriers go away or even bend a little. It IS impossible for a loudspeaker to have an impedance phase angle in excess of +-90 degrees. Period. It's not something a bunch of us got together and passed a rule and said we don't want anyone to do this, it is a matter of PHYSICAL impossibility because it requires a passive network to have negative linear resistances. That's just impossible. It IS impossible for a speaker to have a purely capacitive impedance. Many people have made this claim, but such a loudspeaker cannot make any sound. That's no rule we got together and made, it's the basic law of conservation of energy. It IS impossible for a speaket to be completely self-damping, i.e., to have no change in damping whether or not it is hooked to an amplifier or no matter what the output impedance of the amplifier is. To do otherwise violates the conservation of enrgy. It's not because I said so, it's because you can't make energy appear where none was. You don't like the good-ol-boys engineers who tell you this because you don't like hearing the facts. But the facts are there, whether you like them or not. It frankly IS insulting and not a small amount disrespectful to have a person who admits to not knowing much at all about engineering and physics to be telling us how engineering and physics work. I think we have been very patient, but YOU need to understand that whatever the lmitations of knowledge of someone in the engineering business might be, the limits placed on people who are NOT in the business are much more strict. I would, on the other hand, once again encourage you and everyone else to try to educate yourselves more on how this stuff works. It IS really fascinating and can lead to all sorts of new and wonderful insights. And, by the the way, about that open mind thing: an open mind is a good thing, just as long as your brain doesn't fall out. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Chris Johnson wrote:
In article , (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: Alternatively, and more rationally, one might say that the true 'high end' lies in speakers and in room architecture, since the electronics end seems to have pretty well peaked, with only features and styling to differentiate good-quality players and amps. Cable of course, is just cable. It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to make unqualified general statements like this. Stewart wrote 'seems to have pretty well'...really, that's all it takes, as far as qualification. When subjectivists start employing the word *seems* regularly, they'll get less flak from me, at least. Cable is, of course, just cable, unless it's specifically designed not to be transparent, so there's no need to qualify that. And the rest of your post didn't seem to refer to cable, so I presume you agree. -- -S. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Dennis Moore wrote:
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the same combatants. I've read a number of the previous responses to this post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. Any question posed by a newbie is easily turned back to debating dbts or something else similar and esoteric. However, I agree with the poster that says RAHE is not audiophile friendly. Going further, most newbies that post a question are likely to get their thread hijacked and their question never answered. Another regular poster responded that there are plenty of other forums for people to go to if they are not happy with the "high end" discussions here. I am familiar with other options and I found few other forums and no newsgroups that answer my questions about "high end" audio. RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal addresses that issue. Jerry Cipriano |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
On 22 Aug 2003 17:39:58 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be *proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective. To the majority of audiophiles the reviews in the audio magazines are the closest thing to product performance information and comparison that are available. Sad, but true. The likes of Ken Kessler and Martin Colloms (for very different reasons) do nothing to encourage real advances in performance. :-( Do you refer to proofs that are possible for each audiophile to discover on his own, or is there some source where results are to be found? The former. Never trust anyone elses results. As a 'high end' brand, Meridian is the obvious example. Obvious to you, but not to me. What makes it obvious to you? They are engineering led products, not fashion victims. They probably represent the *real* cutting edge of audio technology, and do not rely on technobabble for their sales pitch. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
On 22 Aug 2003 17:39:29 GMT, Chris Johnson wrote:
In article , (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: Alternatively, and more rationally, one might say that the true 'high end' lies in speakers and in room architecture, since the electronics end seems to have pretty well peaked, with only features and styling to differentiate good-quality players and amps. Cable of course, is just cable. It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to make unqualified general statements like this. It's not unqualified, did you miss 'good-quality'? Cable of course, *is* just cable, an unqualified but correct statement which remains to be disproved by *anyone*. After all, it's not even true- if you assume no possible interaction with the amp and the speaker load, you could say that, but that's not real-world! I might suggest the qualifier "if you limit your amplifier choices exclusively to ones that don't have weird ill-behaved interactions with unusual loads". That would of course *not* be a qood-quality amp, now would it? While there's a lot of rubbish around - and it seems to get *worse* as the prices skyrocket - there's also plenty of good stuff around. To you that may be a given, but there's no reason to assume such weird and ill-designed amplifiers don't produce euphonic effects for some. Euphonic distortions have been well-understood for many decades, even if the 'valves 'n vinyl' brigade refuse to accept them for what they are. They have nothing to do with *high fidelity* music reproduction. ANY divergence from ideal accuracy is a distortion, even divergences in the nature of 'making bad recordings sound nice' or 'making limited recordings sound more like they're in an acoustic space'. Quite so. Once you're dealing with audio voodoo of that nature, anything's fair game, and it could well be that the amp you like best is ill-behaved and subject to interactions with other components, even if it 'should not'. It's a double-bind (NOT 'blind' ) because if you go to the well-behaved amplifiers, you could be losing some particular alteration of the sound that translates it better to your environment in practice. None of us live in anechoic chambers or listen to test tones for fun... Funny how people always try to bring up that old argument - ah yes, but suppose we had fifteen mutually cancelling distortions at work here................ Occam's Razor suggests sticking with low distortion components all the way to the speaker/room interface. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Wylie Williams wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote Sure, but these products are readily identifiable, because they can be *proven* to be both sensibly designed and effective. To the majority of audiophiles the reviews in the audio magazines are the closest thing to product performance information and comparison that are available. And that's the shame of it. Do you refer to proofs that are possible for each audiophile to discover on his own, or is there some source where results are to be found? The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and 4) maintaining databases of the results to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers. -- -S. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Chris Johnson wrote:
It's a bit of a problem if 'subjectivists' are obligated to qualify their statements with "gee, I could be wrong" but 'objectivists' get to make unqualified general statements like this. Objectivists are subject to precisely the same skeptical scrutiny as everyone else. Whether some self-proclaimed subjectivist does or, it seems, more likely does not avail him or herself of the opportunity to skeptically scrutinize the claims is another matter altogether. Maybe it is the mere fact that they DO NO have the same skeptical outlook is really where the difference lies, and the labels "objectiovist" and "subjectivist" are just inaccuare monikers slapped on people by those who are unaware of the subtleties involved or have one or another personal adjendas that need feeding. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
snip
I understand if you expect a certain level of basic understanding from the people posting here. I expect no such thing. What I would hope is that non-experts do not pretend to be experts by pretending to make expert pronouncements. The issue is not whether non-epxerts participate: the vast majority of people here ARE NOT experts in this field. What the problem is is non-experts making statements that are outside their realm of expertise, and then complaining when an expert tells them the statements are not correct. I don't claim to have a patent on the "truth", nor do I purposly give out false statements. I may say things incorrectly, but that is merely because I may need further knowledge about certain issues. It think RAHE should be the right place to discuss new products, ideas, theories or maybe even tries things, that would not seem logical from a conventional engineering point of view. I have no objection to the discussion of new ideas. The problem being is that, again, no disrespect intended, the ideas you have presented regarding this amplifier you've been talking about are not new, worse, they are not good. The manufacturer is presenting them as some sort of miraculuous thing, yet all the evidence points strongly in the direction of either neive incompetence or outright hucksterism. Well, it was one of my goals to see the general reaction, to a such product. I like keeping my mind open, and maybe try to do, or even does, things people says cannot be done. Doing the "impossible" has always been one of the biggest thrills to me. Well, here some impossible things you can try: 1. Using nothing more than a compass, a drafting square, a straightedge and a pencial and all the paper you want, can you draw a square and a circle that have the same enclosed area? 2. Can you construct the 6th regular polyhedron in 3 dimension orthogonal space? Currently there are only 5: tetrahedron (4 equilateral triangles) hexahedron (6 squares) octahedron (8 equilateral triangles) dodecahedran (12 regular pentagons) icosahedron (20 equilateral triangles) These are two impossible tasks. Indeed, they have been proven impossible via rigorous proofs. Well, there are certain impossible things, that my common sense will keep from attempting to solve Of course, nothing can replace good engineering, I respect that. What I oppose to, is some sort of general too big a loyalty towards the "rules" , which means that the engineering "one optimal solution to one particular problem" approach, should never rule out doing things differently, just to try. NO, it does NOT mean that at all. PLease, as a person who is a non-expert in the field of engineering, do not pretend to know what the rules of engineering are. The "rules" include the law of conservation of energy, the law of conservation of electrical charge (forming, for example, the basis of Kirschoff's current and voltage laws), Ohm's law, and much more. This is precisely my objection, you, as a non-expert in engineering, have now made a pronouncement about how engineering works. And you are wrong. And, if you do as you have earlier, you will refuse to accept the consequences of being wrong on an engineering point: that conclusions drawn from a wrong point are wrong. There's a tremendous amount of wiggle room in engineering, but, ultimately, behind all that room you WILL encounter a set of VERY rigid boundaries not set, as you claim, by some good-old- boy network of engineers, but by the fundamental limitations of physics itself. No amount of wishfull thinking is going to make those barriers go away or even bend a little. It IS impossible for a loudspeaker to have an impedance phase angle in excess of +-90 degrees. Period. It's not something a bunch of us got together and passed a rule and said we don't want anyone to do this, it is a matter of PHYSICAL impossibility because it requires a passive network to have negative linear resistances. That's just impossible. It IS impossible for a speaker to have a purely capacitive impedance. Many people have made this claim, but such a loudspeaker cannot make any sound. That's no rule we got together and made, it's the basic law of conservation of energy. It IS impossible for a speaket to be completely self-damping, i.e., to have no change in damping whether or not it is hooked to an amplifier or no matter what the output impedance of the amplifier is. To do otherwise violates the conservation of enrgy. It's not because I said so, it's because you can't make energy appear where none was. You don't like the good-ol-boys engineers who tell you this because you don't like hearing the facts. But the facts are there, whether you like them or not. It frankly IS insulting and not a small amount disrespectful to have a person who admits to not knowing much at all about engineering and physics to be telling us how engineering and physics work. I think we have been very patient, but YOU need to understand that whatever the lmitations of knowledge of someone in the engineering business might be, the limits placed on people who are NOT in the business are much more strict. Seems like you are interpreting my words against my intentions. As I said, I have great respect for good engineering, and knows there are no replacement for math and physics I would, on the other hand, once again encourage you and everyone else to try to educate yourselves more on how this stuff works. It IS really fascinating and can lead to all sorts of new and wonderful insights. Well, if I were'nt interested in learning more, I'd probably not be here.... KE And, by the the way, about that open mind thing: an open mind is a good thing, just as long as your brain doesn't fall out. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
THE AUDIOPHILE PRESS
In article NJQ1b.238289$uu5.47499@sccrnsc04, Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and These are for engineers, not audiophiles. Most of us don't care about engineering principles. This hobby is about enjoying music. 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and Stereophile does this. Do you think if they only did this only and stopped printing the reviews anyone would read it? 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and What does this mean - DBTs. Audiophiles don't care. Mike, once again, you seem to think you speak for "audiophiles." When did this election occur or is it a blood-line rise to the throne? Also, you seem also to have taken on the task of defining "audiophile" as anyone who agrees with your position. You would seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with you can therefore not be an audiophile. You have put strict limits on who is or is not a member of your club. So, do the members of your little club have a salute? Do they get to wear badges and all? Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with you. If you believe the above is the role of the audio press, then why don't you start a magazine to do all those things. I'll tell you why - no one would be interested in reading it. Really, NO ONE? Again, how do you know this. YOU might not be interested in reading it, but gee, the world consists of something other than Mike clones. Okay maybe a handful of zealots here would buy it, but that's about it. A handful of zealots. Gee, that seems to describe YOUR definition of exclusionary audiophilic bigotry quite well. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven said
At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of *subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! difference! I could be wrong, though." I said I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here. Steven said When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed. Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one amp "seemed" better than another? Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by visual cues that they don't believe it is possible? Steven said They'd almost certainly get *no* flak from skeptics. I said Wouldn't that be nice. Steven said Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to acknowledge the existence of perceptual error. I said Some, certainly. All, certainly not. Steven said Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all* The words imply all to me. You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then? You want every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't done bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You could have said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said "subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if you fail to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an amp IMO the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no scientific weight would be understood. I said One could say the same of some objectivists who seem to feel any comment on the sound of almost any component besides a speaker isn't just subject to lack of certainty but is certain to be meaningless. Both sides of this debate seem to have their militant radicals. Steven said Well, let's see, we have speakers, cartridges, digital players, amps, preamps, and cables. Those are the essence of most 'high end' systems today. Along with turntables and pickup arms to make the allow th cartridges to work . Steven said Of those, only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to sound different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are* expected to produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests. An opinion held by some and not others. Steven said "Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted) 'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data confirming the existence of perceptual error. I said Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted sonic impressions meaningless. Steven said What 'meaning' do they have? Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning. Steven said The 'impressions' might be accurate; or they might not be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to support the comment. They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias controlled tests and they are not is inaccurate as random results. There are people who make big bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable. Steven said Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Steven said As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own 'impressions' of component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty. Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many other objectivists. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of *subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! difference! I could be wrong, though." I said I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here. Steven said When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed. Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one amp "seemed" better than another? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's so rare, you see. Do I *record* each instance? No, sorry. Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by visual cues that they don't believe it is possible? Only when the context seems to indicate it...which seems to be often. Then there's is the frequency with which 'subjectivists' get bent out of shape when the possibility is brought up. IME, of course. Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all* The words imply all to me. Then let me reassure you: they don't mean *all*. You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then? You want every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't done bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You could have said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said "subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if you fail to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an amp IMO the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no scientific weight would be understood. I'm usually pretty careful about how I phrase things, but I'm sure I slip up occasionally. Of those, only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to sound different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are* expected to produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests. An opinion held by some and not others. And the difference between what the 'some' and the 'others' understand about the physical principles in question, is often the key. Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted sonic impressions meaningless. Steven said What 'meaning' do they have? Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning. Sighted, reports of difference between CDs and amps and cables only become 'reliable' when there's other data, much less 'perfectly' reliable. be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to support the comment. They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias controlled tests and they are not is inaccurate as random results. They are more likely to be the latter than the former. There are people who make big bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable. Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference, controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia. It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is. As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own 'impressions' of component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty. Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many other objectivists. That's because I am suffused with pity for others. ; -- -S. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message .net...
"Steven Sullivan" The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and 4) maintaining databases of the results to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers. -- -S. Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons of equipment. A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful, other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would let you know what something sounds like. Unless it is equipment you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong. I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found indistinguishable from other equipment. Waiting anxiously no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers. Yep that would be a runaway publishing success. Dennis Correction Dennis- for all that anyone knows speakers are exempted only from "they all sound the same under ABX" rule because no one thought as yet of getting an audiophile panel together to ABX them. Ludovic Mirabel |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Dennis Moore wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and 4) maintaining databases of the results to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers. -- -S. Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons of equipment. I know what they do. And like audiophiles at home, their conclusions from sighted listening are highly questionable for certain classes of components. I've been told that an ABX comparator cost about $600. Compare that to what audiophiles routinely spend on equipment. Surely Stereophile can spend that to add an ABX box to its test arsenal. A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful, other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would let you know what something sounds like. For several classes of componets, that really doesn't matter until you can first establish that component B sounds *different from* reference component A. It would make all the subsequent blather about 'detail' and 'involvement' ever so much more plausible. Unless it is equipment you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong. I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found indistinguishable from other equipment. So, your argument is, the truth may be unmarketable? Waiting anxiously no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers. Speakers, LP-related gear, and possibly tubed vs SS amps. And room treatments. Speakers comprise a huge fraction of reviews, I've noticed. Yep that would be a runaway publishing success. No audiophile magazine is currently a 'runaway publishing success' AFAICT, so why should that be a special concern of a 'zine that uses DBT (which, btw, some reviewers at Sound and Vision and Sensible SOund *do* use)? Arguing that an objective review format might be unpopular to true believers essentially concedes that it's a faith-based hobby, not one interested in accuracy or scientific truth. I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it might entail. That, too, is another argument from the *marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the *principles* of controlled comparison. -- -S. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Bob Marcus wrote:
"Jerry C." wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the same combatants. If you scroll back through Google's listing of active threads for the last month, you'll find that the vast majority of threads are not devoted to this tired old debate at all. And if you check into the many other threads, you will find that few if any degenerate into shouting matches about DBTs and such (in part because there's a strict rule against it). Damn you and your *facts*. It's easy to get the perception that that's all anybody talks about around here, but it's not. Just in the last couple of days there have been questions raised about amps, loudspeakers, impedance matching--even digital cables, for god's sake, and they've all gotten polite and informative responses. I've read a number of the previous responses to this post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. I doubt anybody loves it. I wish the folks who start those threads would cease and desist. As I have demonstrated, the 'starters' tend to be anti-DBT/ABX adherents. Perhaps they should all be put on probation until they learn to behave. But most other audio discussion sites on the Web ban the subject, so they come over here (and then complain that the discussions elsewhere are much more informative). Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative *enough*! Sheesh. -- -S. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:lpW1b.239607$YN5.162514@sccrnsc01... S888Wheel wrote: Steven said At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of *subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference! difference! I could be wrong, though." I said I think you paint subjectivists with a bit of a broad brush here. Steven said When they start acknowledging the possibility of perceptual bias when they make their endless reports of audible difference, maybe I'll narrow it down. IME , the number who do is a miniscule fraction of the breed. Don't forget that you experience is also subject to biases and selective memory. Do you really take note every time some one says things like one amp "seemed" better than another? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's so rare, you see. Do I *record* each instance? No, sorry. Do you assume that when one doesn't qualify an opinion with the note that their impressions may have been influenced by visual cues that they don't believe it is possible? Only when the context seems to indicate it...which seems to be often. Then there's is the frequency with which 'subjectivists' get bent out of shape when the possibility is brought up. IME, of course. It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the *huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*) statement makes to the following logic: Set 2 traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in this case no difference vs traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced, perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested* therefore we cannot conclude which test reveals the true difference *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). Well, there's a reason I didn't write the word *all* The words imply all to me. Then let me reassure you: they don't mean *all*. You name a group and make no qualifications. Are you not some what guilty of the same thing you are complaining about then? You want every subjectivist to qualify every claim of perception if they haven't done bias controled tests but it just ends up being extra verbosity. You could have said "some subjectivists" or "many subjectivists "but you simply said "subjectivists seem simply unwilling...". That includes all of them if you fail to qualify the claim.OTOH if I say I like a car or a kind of food or an amp IMO the logical qualification that it is an opinion that carries no scientific weight would be understood. I'm usually pretty careful about how I phrase things, but I'm sure I slip up occasionally. Of those, only speakers and cartridges can be *expected* from physical principles to sound different given competent design and normal use. And the others *are* expected to produce 'uncertain' results in sighted tests. An opinion held by some and not others. And the difference between what the 'some' and the 'others' understand about the physical principles in question, is often the key. Uncertain perceptions are not the same as wortless ones. Science does support the notion that sighted biases can influence one's perceptions. It does not support the notion, some seem to hold, that such influence renders all sighted sonic impressions meaningless. A succinct exposition of Set's 1 and 2 above. Steven said What 'meaning' do they have? Something between no meaning and perfectly reliable meaning. Sighted, reports of difference between CDs and amps and cables only become 'reliable' when there's other data, much less 'perfectly' reliable. be. That's as far as you can get, without some *other* principle or data to support the comment. They are not as likely to be accurate as one would get in bias controlled tests and they are not is inaccurate as random results. They are more likely to be the latter than the former. There are people who make big bucks dealing with such kinds of uncertainties. Uncetainty is managable. Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference, controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia. It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is. As far I know, *I'm* the only one on any forum I've seen who has called such impressions 'meaningless' btw. And I *always* try to couch my own 'impressions' of component sound in terms that acknoweldge uncertainty. Actually, IMO you are far more polite about your opinions than many other objectivists. That's because I am suffused with pity for others. ; |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Jerry C. wrote: RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal addresses that issue. The 'closed poker game' metaphor is silly. It's an open forum, as long as you abide by the rules...which, fortunately, do NOT ban expressions of skepticism of audiophile folklore. Neitehr do they ban the posting of such folklore. Boy does that irritate me. Actually, there's nothing to stop someone from posting here, "When I switched from copper to silver interconnects I found that I got a much greater emotional experience when listening to music." This statement cannot be contradicted, and won't be. And even if someone replies that your results might be different if you compared the two blind, so what? It's indisputably true, as both sides concede. Why it's true is a matter of dispute, but since the original post makes no claims for why it's true, that question shouldn't come up--unless someone else takes umbrage at the response. As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most circumstances. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not
become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it might entail. That, too, is another argument from the *marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the *principles* of controlled comparison. -- -S. I suspect the loss of revenue argument doesn't hold water. Now that TAS and Stereophile are owned by other companies that may indeed by how they are being handled. What I first liked about both was they were unique among consumer level publications at telling some truth as the end user would find it. As in if something broke they told you. As in if they didn't like something it was clear. Not everything they reviewed was liked. Both were also growing and successful when they did this. They don't much do it now, and they also both appear to be shrinking in appeal. Though there are many, many other contributing factors. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Jerry C. wrote: RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal addresses that issue. The 'closed poker game' metaphor is silly. It's an open forum, as long as you abide by the rules...which, fortunately, do NOT ban expressions of skepticism of audiophile folklore. Neitehr do they ban the posting of such folklore. Boy does that irritate me. Actually, there's nothing to stop someone from posting here, "When I switched from copper to silver interconnects I found that I got a much greater emotional experience when listening to music." This statement cannot be contradicted, and won't be. And even if someone replies that your results might be different if you compared the two blind, so what? It's indisputably true, as both sides concede. Why it's true is a matter of dispute, but since the original post makes no claims for why it's true, that question shouldn't come up--unless someone else takes umbrage at the response. As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most circumstances. Well its a nice fantasy, and devoutly to be wished. But I see nothing in the track record of this group to suggest that somebody wouldn't reply that the increased emotional satisfaction was only imaginary since the switch was obviously known, and that if the two cables were compared using a dbt or more specifically abx, then there would be no difference and accordingly the increased emotional investment would of necessity be imaginary, and btw, I'm only telling you this for your own good. If the poster was lucky the tone would be respectful; if not, well..... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53...
It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless This is a fair point, but it blames only one side. It is my impression that a very common situation is that your "critics" post some form of the first, but it is interpreted by your "friends" as the second. If we're going to improve the civility around here, we're going to have to learn to read--as well as write--with more care and sensitivity. bob |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've seen here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD differences to be worthless because 1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own merits, and 2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary not because I *know* they are imaginary. They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective stance. Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the *huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*) statement makes to the following logic: Set 2 traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in this case no difference vs traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" Indeed. traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias INdeed. traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced, perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested* THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint. The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary. *Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces bias. *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). 'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'? Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic' results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias. And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite Oohashi, so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers. To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't even support the anti-ABX side. Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference, controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia. It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is. No comments on any of this, Harry? It is rather central to my view, after all. -- -S. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net...
Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven" (no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry, no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan- and the horrors of invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time. As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND differences heard if any. The savings include the expense for a pink noise generator. Ludovic Mirabel Dennis Moore wrote: "Steven Sullivan" The audiophile review press should be 1) educating readers about relevant engineering principles and 2) employing proper measurements in reviews and 3) employing proper comparison techniques in reviews and 4) maintaining databases of the results to provide *maximum* useful information to 'high-end' consumers. -- -S. Well the reason those magazines are done the way they are makes sense. They do with lots of equipment what most audiophiles can do at home. Hook it up, listen to it, and evaluate it in sighted listening. Live with it a few weeks or months, and give you their opinion at that time. Few if any audiophiles are set up or would set up to do DBT comparisons of equipment. I know what they do. And like audiophiles at home, their conclusions from sighted listening are highly questionable for certain classes of components. I've been told that an ABX comparator cost about $600. Compare that to what audiophiles routinely spend on equipment. Surely Stereophile can spend that to add an ABX box to its test arsenal. A magazine that did extensive useful tests would be helpful, other than no one seems to agree on what kind of tests would let you know what something sounds like. For several classes of componets, that really doesn't matter until you can first establish that component B sounds *different from* reference component A. It would make all the subsequent blather about 'detail' and 'involvement' ever so much more plausible. Unless it is equipment you have tested with DBT's and decide it does nothing wrong. I am sure there would be many thrilled subscribers looking at this months tests of equipment to see it all had been found indistinguishable from other equipment. So, your argument is, the truth may be unmarketable? Waiting anxiously no doubt for each months list of approved indistinguishable equipment. I guess that would only leave speakers. Speakers, LP-related gear, and possibly tubed vs SS amps. And room treatments. Speakers comprise a huge fraction of reviews, I've noticed. Yep that would be a runaway publishing success. No audiophile magazine is currently a 'runaway publishing success' AFAICT, so why should that be a special concern of a 'zine that uses DBT (which, btw, some reviewers at Sound and Vision and Sensible SOund *do* use)? Arguing that an objective review format might be unpopular to true believers essentially concedes that it's a faith-based hobby, not one interested in accuracy or scientific truth. I suspect a more likely reason DBT-based reviews would not become the norm, is the loss of advertising revenue it might entail. That, too, is another argument from the *marketplace*, not a compelling argument against the *principles* of controlled comparison. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote: in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis "Jerry C." wrote I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the same combatants. If you scroll back through Google's listing of active threads for the last month, you'll find that the vast majority of threads are not devoted to this tired old debate at all. And if you check into the many other threads, you will find that few if any degenerate into shouting matches about DBTs and such (in part because there's a strict rule against it). Damn you and your *facts*. It's easy to get the perception that that's all anybody talks about around here, but it's not. Just in the last couple of days there have been questions raised about amps, loudspeakers, impedance matching--even digital cables, for god's sake, and they've all gotten polite and informative responses. "Jerry C" wrote: I've read a number of the previous responses to this post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. I doubt anybody loves it. I wish the folks who start those threads would cease and desist. Perhaps "love" is a poorly chosen word. As I have demonstrated, the 'starters' tend to be anti-DBT/ABX adherents. Perhaps they should all be put on probation until they learn to behave. But most other audio discussion sites on the Web ban the subject, so they come over here (and then complain that the discussions elsewhere are much more informative). Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative *enough*! Sheesh. Actually Mr. Sullivan, I didn't "complain" here and I didn't say or infer that "discussion here isn't informative enough". I supported the original poster's implications (he implied much more than he said) after he was contradicted by a number of the regulars here. I think that I am being constructive if the regulars would be interested in knowing how many non-regulars perceive this (I am being presumptive to speak for others, I know). I would wager (but can't prove in a dbt) that many lurkers agree with me. BTW, I do believe that many of the regulars are very informed and knowledgeable about what they speak. I just wish they would answer more of the questions directly without digressing to tangential subjects. As I originally said, I hope that RAHE takes this as intended constructively. I do not wish to criticise pointlessly. Respectfully, Jerry Cipriano |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53... *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). (1) There were other significant differences in Oohashi tests than just the ones just stated. For example, the alternatives compared included different loudspeaker systems, which not surprisingly had different measured frequency response in the normal audible range. (2) Many blind tests related to the same issue have been done under highly relaxed conditions and there are no known positive results. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Bob Marcus" wrote.
As I've said before, I understand why someone might get the impression that they can't post here without being attacked. But I think if they try, they'll be surprised at how benign we all are, under most circumstances. Bob, it's all a matter of point of view. From the viewpoint of someone accustomed to the ways of RAHE you are correct. But from the viewpoint of the vast majority of audiophiles who are not accustomed to the ways of RAHE you are wrong. Virtually all audiophiles have been reared in the subjectivist school so when they make a post on RAHE and are pulled up short they are shocked. This is a new experience, totally different that what they expect. If they were to be aware in advance of the nature of RAHE they could learn exactly how to phrase their posts to be "safe", but there is no one to coach them on the PC of RAHE. They walk into a newsgroup they assume is composed of like minded people, make statements that would be acceptable anywhere else on the net, and they catch a load of crap. I may not have known many audiophiles, but almost all of the ones I have known have been people of gentle spirits. They are very much taken aback by unexpected insults on their intelligence, and will usually flee rather than fight. If they do attempt a defense, as amatuers against pros they are quickly dispatched in the ensuing debate. What is sparring to a pro is a mugging to the amateur. Wylie Williams |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
newslf2b.188865$Oz4.51393@rwcrnsc54... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mv82b.184354$cF.62105@rwcrnsc53... It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless This is a fair point, but it blames only one side. It is my impression that a very common situation is that your "critics" post some form of the first, but it is interpreted by your "friends" as the second. If we're going to improve the civility around here, we're going to have to learn to read--as well as write--with more care and sensitivity. Can't disagree with that. But its also important that we read (and importantly inspect what we write) for "tone". It is possible for the words to say one thing objectively, but the tone imply something broader. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:VBf2b.251126$Ho3.32930@sccrnsc03... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've seen here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD differences to be worthless because 1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own merits, and 2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary not because I *know* they are imaginary. They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective stance. Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the *huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*) statement makes to the following logic: Set 2 traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in this case no difference vs traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" Indeed. traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induc ed bias INdeed. traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced, perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested* THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint. The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary. *Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces bias. *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). 'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'? Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic' results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias. I didn't say it was support for sighted tests. I said it was support for the contentions of "subjectivists" in the DBT debates over the years that evaluating music is best done in a relaxed, "take it all in" state which allows for relaxed listening, then picking up on details that make themselfs known, then doing comparative listening, then going back to all-inclusive listening, etc...all in a relaxed state (mentally, physically). And taking notes. Then finally, drawing some overall conclusions. The Oohashi et al group deliberately set up conditions as relaxed and conducive to normal listening as they could, then have people take notes (monadic ratings). The tests were so blind the people had no idea what was being tested. But nonetheless they heard statistically significant differences under these conditions, both objectively and emotionally as revealed in their ratings. While ealier this same group claimed to have tried to do the traditional quick-switch a-b test, then choose system and found "no difference". Subjectivists have long claimed that the blind a-b test conditions themselves worked against proper musical evaluation. The research is a piece of "hard evidence" that this POV may be somewhat correct. Obviously it is not proven science until/unless replicated but most subjectivisist have been skeptical all along. This is why they resist accepting the conclusion that since blind abx tests show "no difference" that means all the differences that seem fairly obvious in sighted testing are imaginary. And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite Oohashi, so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers. To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't even support the anti-ABX side. The main thing is the belief that blind a-b (and especially abx) testing is done under such dissimlar conditions from normal listening that the test itself interferes. Oohashi et al lend some support to that assertion. I understand why this shakes the objectivist orthodoxy so, but to just assume it is mistaken research and blithely ignore it shows closed minds, not open ones. Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference, controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia. It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is. No comments on any of this, Harry? It is rather central to my view, after all. By not commenting I was showing I have no disagreement. But as noted above, this needs to apply to objectivists as well as subjectivists. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net... Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven" (no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry, no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan- and the horrors of invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time. Personally I'm not frightened of such straw men, merely irritated that you keep creating them. As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND differences heard if any. Quite so. The savings include the expense for a pink noise generator. Indeed. Do a blind comparison using your favorite music. If the results indicate audible difference, pick the component that sounded best to you. I'd only suggest that you also make sure the comparison is level-matched. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Jerry C. wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Or, like Jerry, complain that discussion here isn't informative *enough*! Sheesh. Actually Mr. Sullivan, I didn't "complain" here and I didn't say or infer that "discussion here isn't informative enough". I supported the original poster's implications (he implied much more than he said) after he was contradicted by a number of the regulars here. I think that I am being constructive if the regulars would be interested in knowing how many non-regulars perceive this (I am being presumptive to speak for others, I know). I would wager (but can't prove in a dbt) that many lurkers agree with me. BTW, I do believe that many of the regulars are very informed and knowledgeable about what they speak. I just wish they would answer more of the questions directly without digressing to tangential subjects. As I originally said, I hope that RAHE takes this as intended constructively. I do not wish to criticise pointlessly. Respectfully, Jerry Cipriano Since you've failed to specify just *what* the implications in question were, I've pasted the original post and your reply to it below. Rereading it, I stand by my assertion that you complained that this newsgroup isn't informative enough. // Dennis Moore wrote: Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to rec.audio.dbt? Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc. How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to be high-enders for the most part. [Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD] A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too. Seriously, Dennis I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the same combatants. I've read a number of the previous responses to this post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. Any question posed by a newbie is easily turned back to debating dbts or something else similar and esoteric. However, I agree with the poster that says RAHE is not audiophile friendly. Going further, most newbies that post a question are likely to get their thread hijacked and their question never answered. Another regular poster responded that there are plenty of other forums for people to go to if they are not happy with the "high end" discussions here. I am familiar with other options and I found few other forums and no newsgroups that answer my questions about "high end" audio. RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal addresses that issue. -- -S. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Sighted tests yield 'difference' 3/4 of the time when subjects are given 2 identical sound presentations. When was the last time anyobe ever heard someone say aloud during an aduio salon presentation "they sounded alike to me." Last weekend. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Actually the breaking news was always covered in Audio, High Fidelity or
Stereo Review well before it ever hit SP or TAS. I read all three for years. And never remember, but one report of breaking equipment in one Audio issue. I may of course have missed them. But they were far from common. I also suspect that many of those reviews in those other magazines consisted of a quick listen, and some measurements. Not the extended use done by SP and TAS. Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them. This is certainly not true. And I 2001 and 2002 fit into the recent issues, after being owned by large companies. Which I clearly differentiated in my post from the earlier years. Even so with a yearly review count of about 150 a 700 RCL would mosty likely contain nearly every product covered in the past 2-3 years. And, no surprise, it does. So much for that appeal. Exactly, the last 2-3 years while owned by large companies. And why this appeal is a thing of the past for the most part. Since I said as much in my post on this, what was your point. They seem to like everything now? I agree, and don't like it. You no longer seem to know what the reviewer really thought. All reviews say things like ,"if you are looking for a 100 watt amp in this price range, you might wish to consider this one." Well no kidding, I knew that before reading the review. But hey, this is only an emulation of Stereo Review, the world's most successful magazine. I once saw the perfect summation of a Julian Hirsch review. "Of all the equipment like this I have reviewed. This is one of them." Dennis |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:VBf2b.251126$Ho3.32930@sccrnsc03...
Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message With your permission I'll begin at the end. You say: Yes, we know ways to reduce it (ie. uncertainty in audio). For validating the existence of audible difference controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Re "scientists". Apples and oranges. Scientists do not test for musical differences between components. They introduce a KNOWN artefact: distortion, frequency bumps, codecs whatever. The subject either hears it or he does not. There is a verifiable reference point. The subjects are hand-picked, selected and rejected if untalented, then trained and retrained to do that well-defined and relatively simple task. Compare listening for differences between components as to how they reproduce music. The subjects SHOULD not be hand-picked, selected and rejected if not talented, trained and retrained. Audiophile consumers are not. They are a motley crew of different ages, different musical interests and experience; from those who never but never listen to unamplified instruments to chamber music lovers. Of course you can try to have a series of tests with matched subjects and different kinds of musical signal for significant results. Good luck. And what will their results mean to each other? You have a mother of all biases built in. You might say that at least any single person doing the test and failing to hear differences saved himself money. OR he shut himself from improving his sensitivity by further exposure and training. You have a false dichotomy: Sighted listening bad- DBT good. Sighted listening is bad if you're a willing prey to marketing. It is less bad if you know how to resist it and even less bad if you know what you want and have experience to go after it. In other words its hazards vary from individual to individual. Just like DBTs or any other kind of infallible "test" for "testing" sensory perception in individual brains. By all means DBT or not if you get fun and pleasure either way. Don't imagine you have a key that others must use. As for what "manufacturers" do and believe- you don't know, nor do I. Gossip is not evidence. Ludovic Mirabel It seems to me that we get bent out of shape when our critics forget the difference within the two following sets of logic: Set 1 tradional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion may be vulnerable to sight-induced bias vs traditional sighted tests have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias my opinion has been formed by traditional sighted test therefore my opinion is simply my imagination and the testing is worthless Well, that's a curious view, but it's not mine, nor is it anyone's I've seen here, AFAIR. *I* consider sighted anecdoates about amp and cable and CD differences to be worthless because 1) they *cannot be distinguished from* imaginary effects, on their own merits, and 2) there is compelling reason to believe they *could* be imaginary not because I *know* they are imaginary. They do nothing to settle an issue one way or another, from an objective stance. Moreover we get bent out of shape when you and others continue to ignore the *huge* difference in conclusion that a simple additional (and true*) statement makes to the following logic: Set 2 traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias therefore defacto the traditional blind test must be the true difference, in this case no difference vs traditional blind tests often yield "no difference" when sighted tests yield "difference" Indeed. traditional sighted test have been shown to be vulnerable to sight-induced bias INdeed. traditional blind test vulnerability to non-sight-induced, perception-distorting biases has not been adequately tested* THe last statement is untrue from a scientific standpoint. The existence of perceptual bias, and hte need for controls to ameliorate its effects in experiments, has been accepted for decades in science. 'Sight' is not literally necessary. *Knowledge* of which treamtent is in force, is what induces bias. *for example, the radically different results obtained by Oohashi et al when testing long-duration but blind listening under relaxed conditions on a proto-monadic basis (statistically significant difference despite lack of close proximity rapid switching), versus traditional shorter duration comparative blind testing (no statistical difference). 'For example' or 'here's the only case I know of, and it's unreplicated'? Aside from which, how on God's green earth could Oohashi's 'proto-monadic' results be construed as support for *sighted* results? *Every* sighted results would *still* have to be verified by blind comparison. Oohashi's results don't point ot he nonexistence of perceptual bias. And btw, Harry, you're the *only* anti_Abxer who I've ever seen cite Oohashi, so I really , really doubt this is a sore point for most true believers. To mention it as if it's the main thing that's getting subjectivists 'bent out of shape' over anti-ABX claims, is absurd. It's a result taht doesn't even support the anti-ABX side. Yes, we know ways to reduce it. For validating the existence of audible difference, controlled audition is considered the best by scientists and even a few audio component manufacterers. Alas, this is true even if *lots* of subjectivists report similar 'impressions', since we can't know how independent the reports are. Again, lack of certainty is a managable problem. Gee even objectivists have to deal with biases when evaluating speakers. It seems most of them live with it. Lack of certainty shoudl be acknowledged more often in audiophilia. It also could and should be 'managed' far, far better than it usually is. No comments on any of this, Harry? It is rather central to my view, after all. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Julian Hirsch did a review of a Counterpoint tube preamp in Stereo review back
in the mid eighties. It cost 3,000 dollars and had no tone controls. Surprisingly enough, he really liked it. One could get a SS preamp for a tenth the price at the time with more inputs and tone controls with no tubes to change out over time and Julian Hirch still heaped praise on the Counterpoint. To this day I am surprised by that review. He even talked about how much he enjoyed listening to it though he never claimed it sounded any different than any other preamp. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
(Nousaine) wrote:
Stereophile seemingly has never met an amplifier it didn't like. How many of the amplifiers reviewed in 2001 and 2002 appeared on the RCL? All of them. You don't understand how reviewers for these magazines operate. Most of the time reviewers request to review products they are interested in or a component that has impressed them. No one wants to write a review of a bad product or one they don't like (it's too much work). The exception to this is a product a manufacturer has been begging to get reviewed or something that has been getting a lot of press which will then be assigned to a reviewer. That's why most of the reviews you read are positive. Regards, Mike |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message .net... Between the horrors of invincible sighted bias that has been "proven" (no?) to afflict everyone , but everyone equally:- experienced or not experienced, an unamplified music concert goer with good taste (sorry, no chapter about that in the electronics manual, no study in JAES) or a rock fan, chamber music lover or car audio fan- and the horrors of invariable "They all sound the same" ABX earmuffs give me the subjectivist impressions of sighted J.Gordon Holt any time. Personally I'm not frightened of such straw men, merely irritated that you keep creating them. "You're creating a strawman" appears to be a favourite strawman argument in RAHE. "Strawman" thus used is a diversion away from the topic under discussion to replace a rational argument. I seldom heard it in any debate I witnessed or took part in with the frequency I heard it since joining RAHE. In the circumstances "irritation" is understandable. Ludovic Mirabel As for myself if I have to I'll have someone cover the brand names and have him play my favourite music.. Presto; $ 600:00 saved AND differences heard if any. Quite so. The savings include the expense for a pink noise generator. Indeed. Do a blind comparison using your favorite music. If the results indicate audible difference, pick the component that sounded best to you. I'd only suggest that you also make sure the comparison is level-matched. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
rec.audio.dbt
|