| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Blindtest question
"Nousaine" wrote in message
et... "All Ears" wrote" can recommend blind testing beer, nobody can taste any difference within the same type of beer anyway. Lots of money to save....  So then why not for audio components? I do not disagree about the basic idea of blind tests, done under the right circumstances. It is always good with a reality check. However, I must also admit that I like choosing things like cables, from how I think they sound in my system. This is despite the fact that I know that I probably not will be able to identify these cables in a blind test. But then again, if changing something like set of speaker cables can change my perception of the sound from being harsh, bright, laid back, etc. into something pleasing, then why not do it? KE |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
All Ears wrote:
I do not disagree about the basic idea of blind tests, done under the right circumstances. It is always good with a reality check. However, I must also admit that I like choosing things like cables, from how I think they sound in my system. This is despite the fact that I know that I probably not will be able to identify these cables in a blind test. But then again, if changing something like set of speaker cables can change my perception of the sound from being harsh, bright, laid back, etc. into something pleasing, then why not do it? No other reason except you are spending money where it makes the least audible difference. If money is no object (and perhaps even if it is), do it if that makes you happy. KE |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
In article cXB_a.139754$uu5.19479@sccrnsc04,
All Ears wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message . net... "All Ears" wrote" can recommend blind testing beer, nobody can taste any difference within the same type of beer anyway. Lots of money to save.... So then why not for audio components? I do not disagree about the basic idea of blind tests, done under the right circumstances. It is always good with a reality check. However, I must also admit that I like choosing things like cables, from how I think they sound in my system. This is despite the fact that I know that I probably not will be able to identify these cables in a blind test. But then again, if changing something like set of speaker cables can change my perception of the sound from being harsh, bright, laid back, etc. into something pleasing, then why not do it? Absolutely, why not? Certainly I, having been tarred with the objectivist brush, have no objection whatsoever. You have a method which works for you. But it's the elevation of personal preference to physical, universal fact that the problem begins. It's a very different thing to say "I like this cable because such-and-such," it's a very different thing to claim "this cable IS better because of the elimination of interstrand charge jumping and the elimination of intercrystalline micro-diode effects." And it's also a very different kettle of fish to start dragging out excuses like "your system doesn't have enough resolution" and such when one's first claims of "clear and obvious differences" are not born out. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:1lP_a.102001$cF.30984@rwcrnsc53... "All Ears" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message . net... "All Ears" wrote" can recommend blind testing beer, nobody can taste any difference within the same type of beer anyway. Lots of money to save.... So then why not for audio components? I do not disagree about the basic idea of blind tests, done under the right circumstances. It is always good with a reality check. However, I must also admit that I like choosing things like cables, from how I think they sound in my system. This is despite the fact that I know that I probably not will be able to identify these cables in a blind test. But then again, if changing something like set of speaker cables can change my perception of the sound from being harsh, bright, laid back, etc. into something pleasing, then why not do it? KE Well; it could limit the sonic throughput of your system. Or deliver the wrong market data. If hadn't spent the money on the wires you could have purchased more recordings OR given more money to the orchestra of your choice. Buying the wire may have inadvertantley limited the availability of acoustically performed concerts in the long run. Of course my argument is just that. No one of us makes these decisions. But we should be happy that the market as a whole is probably not directly endorsing the cut-back of classical music performance. But it surely isn't helping. I am actually using classical and acoustic music as referance, I don't think that my choice of cables has any negative impact in reprodusing this kind of music. KE |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"chung" wrote in message
news:m8C_a.139809$uu5.20563@sccrnsc04... All Ears wrote: I do not disagree about the basic idea of blind tests, done under the right circumstances. It is always good with a reality check. However, I must also admit that I like choosing things like cables, from how I think they sound in my system. This is despite the fact that I know that I probably not will be able to identify these cables in a blind test. But then again, if changing something like set of speaker cables can change my perception of the sound from being harsh, bright, laid back, etc. into something pleasing, then why not do it? No other reason except you are spending money where it makes the least audible difference. If money is no object (and perhaps even if it is), do it if that makes you happy. Since the rest of the components are among the best money can buy, and I do feel a difference from the choice of cables, I use the ones I like. Of course, things must be put into the right perspective. A set of 3000 USD speaker cables would be a poor investment in a 1000 USD system. KE KE |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
All Ears wrote:
"chung" wrote in message Since the rest of the components are among the best money can buy, and I do feel a difference from the choice of cables, I use the ones I like. Of course, things must be put into the right perspective. A set of 3000 USD speaker cables would be a poor investment in a 1000 USD system. In that case, you obviously can, and will, do whatever you want to make you happy. However, I have this nagging thought that by buying expensive speaker cables (assuming you are not buying the Home Depot or Radio Shack brands), you are endorsing the high-end cable industry, and I can't think of a less worthy segment of audio to endorse. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"chung" wrote in message
... All Ears wrote: "chung" wrote in message Since the rest of the components are among the best money can buy, and I do feel a difference from the choice of cables, I use the ones I like. Of course, things must be put into the right perspective. A set of 3000 USD speaker cables would be a poor investment in a 1000 USD system. In that case, you obviously can, and will, do whatever you want to make you happy. However, I have this nagging thought that by buying expensive speaker cables (assuming you are not buying the Home Depot or Radio Shack brands), you are endorsing the high-end cable industry, and I can't think of a less worthy segment of audio to endorse. I admit that I am not using cheap cables, on the other hand, I don't always think that the most expencive are the best. I know that it is impossible to prove the difference, and I could most likely not identify these cables in a DBT. Does this make me a fool? Maybe, but then again, this is a hobby for me, and I find great joy in combining equipment and listen to the result. In a really good setup, it is often possible to take out one or two minor components and replace with "default components" without any serious damage to the end result. I do not endorse any part of the industry, that do not, from my point of view, deserve it. KE |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
On 14 Aug 2003 19:09:07 GMT, "All Ears" wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:m8C_a.139809$uu5.20563@sccrnsc04... All Ears wrote: If money is no object (and perhaps even if it is), do it if that makes you happy. Since the rest of the components are among the best money can buy, and I do feel a difference from the choice of cables, I use the ones I like. Of course, things must be put into the right perspective. A set of 3000 USD speaker cables would be a poor investment in a 1000 USD system. They're also a darned poor 'investment' in a $30,000 system........ Of course, if phat cables make you feel all warm and phuzzy, why not? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:CvZ%a.140179$cF.51788@rwcrnsc53... "All Ears" wrote: Unless you have 'unlimited' resources it surely must have. I'm not ashamed of spending $2000 to design and build the world's most accomplished subwoofer When a guy building some of the best speakers in the world suggests me to use either brand A or brand B in cables, I think it would be silly at least not to try these? So who does this? If you want names and brands, I can mail these to you. In order to build these speakers, his ears must be good and he must know what he is doing. So if I find that he is right, I'll buy the cables. If this is all true why doesn't his speaker come with the cables? Is he purposley allowing some of his customers to have substandard sound with his speakers. People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. Interestingly enough, different cables are recommended for SS and tubed amplifiers. What I find interesting here, is that a guy capable of designing fantastic speakers, would recommend cables if there really is no difference. These speakers has been refined and improved over many years, going systematically through all components of the construction. I am sure that most people would not be able to hear difference from the individual little improvements, but when it all adds up, it does give a notisable difference. KE Why should you be ashamed in spending $2000 on building the world's most accomplished subwoofer? If you can prove this in a DBT, I'll buy one from you KE You can't "buy" one; you'll have to make it. Want a scheme get a back issue of the June '99 Sound & Vision. Want to know what "wires" are used? Ask me. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
All Ears wrote:
People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. Did the designer put his recommendation on cables in writing? Do you also realize that there may be a conflict of interest if he recommends Home Depot 12-gauge cables? You also should understand that a lot of "audiophiles" will not respect him if he says that all cables of a certain gauge are fine. Maybe a reason he recommends a certain cable is to make sure that you don't buy a cable with built-in tone controls? You should ask him privately if Home Depot 12-gauge is good enough. Interestingly enough, different cables are recommended for SS and tubed amplifiers. What I find interesting here, is that a guy capable of designing fantastic speakers, would recommend cables if there really is no difference. These speakers has been refined and improved over many years, going systematically through all components of the construction. I am sure that most people would not be able to hear difference from the individual little improvements, but when it all adds up, it does give a notisable difference. You should read John Dunlavy's comments on speaker cables. As you well know, he designed some very highly respected speaker systems. Dick Pierce is another professional who designs and develops speaker systems, and you know his position on cables by now. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
In article 5Z90b.182884$YN5.134772@sccrnsc01,
All Ears wrote: You should read John Dunlavy's comments on speaker cables. As you well know, he designed some very highly respected speaker systems. Dick Pierce is another professional who designs and develops speaker systems, and you know his position on cables by now. I have read a lot on this issue, and accepts the fact that in a DBT, nobody can hear a difference. It could have something to do with the fact that the brain has great difficulty in remembering a sound image, and that it tends to fill out the blanks or adapt the sound into something acceptable. Come on, this same old lame, weak, stupid argument has been raised time and time again, and it only gets lamer, weaker and more stupid with each telling. If you're asserting that the brain has great difficulty in remembering a sound image, then, guess what, the brain is at least equally hampered in remembering a sound image in eithe a blind test or an informal test. One of the wntire points of a time-proximate test methodlogy is that it REDUCES the necessaity of the brain to remember fine acoustical details, which IS a known problem. And as to your hypothesis that the brain tends to fill out [sic] the blanks or adapt the sound to something acceptable, it seems that you are making a good case AGAINST "break-in" and any other of a number of high-end claims. You've just started your journey away from the Dark Side, my son. :-) -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
All Ears wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:ZR70b.182160$YN5.133562@sccrnsc01... All Ears wrote: People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. Did the designer put his recommendation on cables in writing? Do you also realize that there may be a conflict of interest if he recommends Home Depot 12-gauge cables? You also should understand that a lot of "audiophiles" will not respect him if he says that all cables of a certain gauge are fine. No the recommendation is verbal. I do however know that he would use dog ****, if it gave the desired result But will he state that, or recommend that to you? Maybe a reason he recommends a certain cable is to make sure that you don't buy a cable with built-in tone controls? You should ask him privately if Home Depot 12-gauge is good enough. The answer would be: "If it works for you, it's fine with me" OK, so he really has no strong opinion on which cable should be used. Makes more sense. You should read John Dunlavy's comments on speaker cables. As you well know, he designed some very highly respected speaker systems. Dick Pierce is another professional who designs and develops speaker systems, and you know his position on cables by now. I have read a lot on this issue, and accepts the fact that in a DBT, nobody can hear a difference. Why would you accept that without trying? If you were willing to accept that, then why not accept that there perhaps is no *audible* difference? It could have something to do with the fact that the brain has great difficulty in remembering a sound image, and that it tends to fill out the blanks or adapt the sound into something acceptable. Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that there is *no audible difference*? Remember Occam's Razor? |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
In article K%b0b.183243$Ho3.25518@sccrnsc03,
All Ears wrote: "Richard D Pierce" wrote in message news:Nma0b.182506$Ho3.24946@sccrnsc03... Come on, this same old lame, weak, stupid argument has been raised time and time again, and it only gets lamer, weaker and more stupid with each telling. If you're asserting that the brain has great difficulty in remembering a sound image, then, guess what, the brain is at least equally hampered in remembering a sound image in eithe a blind test or an informal test. One of the wntire points of a time-proximate test methodlogy is that it REDUCES the necessaity of the brain to remember fine acoustical details, which IS a known problem. And as to your hypothesis that the brain tends to fill out [sic] the blanks or adapt the sound to something acceptable, it seems that you are making a good case AGAINST "break-in" and any other of a number of high-end claims. You've just started your journey away from the Dark Side, my son. :-) Working hard on getting The Force with me.... Frankly speaking, it is just hard not to be allowed to trust the things I experience. Nobody is asking you to do otherwise, any more than you just asked yourself to do. If the brain is, as you claim, imcapable of remmebering a sound image, and is so capable of filling in missing blanks and so adaptable, how can you trust it as a constant? When you design speakers, do you DBT every little modification you do, or do you allow yourself to trust what you (think) you hear? Maybe you design from measurements only? When I design speakers, I do so, most of the time, at the behest of a client who is paying me money to make a speaker that has appropriate commercial viability. That means that the performance has to be first well defined in that market context. That will put constraints on a variety of system performance parameters, and these constraints further lead to a coherent system specification, which includes axial and power response requirements. From that, we get fairly strict requirements for enclosure size and type, driver requirements and so on. With all that in hand, detailed system design can commence and proceed to a point where a final design is pretty well proscribed. How much listening have I done to this point? Well, none is possible because the system doesn't even exist yet. Yet, I can pretty well predict HOW it will sound or, more importantlu, will the sound fit the clients requirements. Generally, it's not necessary to build any more than one or two versions of the prototype for listening purposes, because MOST of the tweaking will have already been done in the design process. THIS is what separates the pros form the amateurs: most people believe that speaker design is this long, almost endless iterative process of build, tweak, rebuild, tweak again, build yet again, tweak yet again, and so on. Well, it IS, if you have neither the skill, experience, tools or facilities to avoid the process. The vats majority of amateurs and not a small number of commercial speaker companies DO NOT HAVE ANY of the required skill, experience, tools or facilities for efficient, comprehensive and accurate design. When I started many years ago, I made a lot of mistakes. Guess what, I don't make thos emistakes anymore. But if you have some rank amateur who has NO test facilities to verify the changes he makes are what he THINKS they a the guy ius going to end up wandering around blind. His ears ARE NOT GOING TO HELP. You just now admitted, for all to see (including you, I hope), that the brain is too willing to fill in gaps, too adaptable, and too poor at remembering detailed sound images. In that sense you are absolutely right. So how can one be trustful of something YOU have declared so unreliable? Let's kook at an example. A person who has NO measurement or design facility may tweak, by ear, the low frequency tuning of a system until it sounds like what he wants. How does this person know that, in the process, he has not seriously compromised the excursion-limited power handling of the system, or its distortion? Another example: since multi-way speakers are not minimum-phase systems (and understand that "minimum phase" is a very precisely defined term that is nonetheless POORLY understood in the audio community), one can not take the response as shown by your typical "real-time analyzer" or even the aural impression by ear and use it to tweak driver equalization, simply because the frequency response and phase response of non-minimum-phase systems are NOT uniquely linked. How many people in the high-end business, in YOUR store, know what "minimum phase" means? I'll bet dollars to donuts the answer is a very small number, yet it is a crucial concept in loudspeaker design. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"All Ears" wrote in message ...
"chung" wrote in message news:eWb0b.183204$Ho3.24948@sccrnsc03... All Ears wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:ZR70b.182160$YN5.133562@sccrnsc01... All Ears wrote: People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. Did the designer put his recommendation on cables in writing? Do you also realize that there may be a conflict of interest if he recommends Home Depot 12-gauge cables? You also should understand that a lot of "audiophiles" will not respect him if he says that all cables of a certain gauge are fine. No the recommendation is verbal. I do however know that he would use dog ****, if it gave the desired result But will he state that, or recommend that to you? Oh yes, he did already, although no actual recommendation is given Maybe a reason he recommends a certain cable is to make sure that you don't buy a cable with built-in tone controls? You should ask him privately if Home Depot 12-gauge is good enough. The answer would be: "If it works for you, it's fine with me" OK, so he really has no strong opinion on which cable should be used. Makes more sense. You should read John Dunlavy's comments on speaker cables. As you well know, he designed some very highly respected speaker systems. Dick Pierce is another professional who designs and develops speaker systems, and you know his position on cables by now. I have read a lot on this issue, and accepts the fact that in a DBT, nobody can hear a difference. Why would you accept that without trying? If you were willing to accept that, then why not accept that there perhaps is no *audible* difference? That is what I hear, over and over again.... It could have something to do with the fact that the brain has great difficulty in remembering a sound image, and that it tends to fill out the blanks or adapt the sound into something acceptable. Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that there is *no audible difference*? Remember Occam's Razor? Maybe..... I'm glad to see that someone doesn't let himself be intimidated by people who believe that heaping up adjectives like "lame, weak, stupid" will cow a heretic into confessing his sins prior to auto-da- fe. The same people, or their kin, will deny, against common sense and all evidence, that "proximate'(or whatever obfuscating substitute for one-after-another sequence they choose) listening to A , then to B and then comparing X with A and B is not a problem for many. No training needed or is it? And how much of it? And who decides when enough is enough? On the other hand when someone like myself says that SIMULTANEOUS comparison by the left-right method with random changes suits HIM better he is told that his method is "fatally flawed" or something to that effect. Says who? Well- they do. And who are they? Those who say so of course. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"All Ears" wrote in message
news:K%b0b.183243$Ho3.25518@sccrnsc03 Frankly speaking, it is just hard not to be allowed to trust the things I experience. The first thing that one needs to do is to understand that there are big differences and little differences. Quantification is often the place were many people let their ears lead them astray. Just because you can hear differences between just about any loudspeakers doesn't mean that you can hear differences between just about any cables or power amplifiers. When you design speakers, do you DBT every little modification you do, or do you allow yourself to trust what you (think) you hear? Loudspeaker design involves relatively large differences. Maybe you design from measurements only? Power amplifier design usually involves relatively small differences. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
Ref: Blindtest issues...
For what its worth... Use about any criteria you desire regarding cables, amps, etc...also, if you feel better about it, put a sign on each component with its name in blazing qualities. It possibly will make you feel better about the system and strangely, the whole thing might well sound better. That is part of this whole experience regarding audio...if your prejudices are deep set from within..then give in to them and enjoy the music. Be happy with the most expensive equipment you can afford, it might well be pretty good..mentally, you might come to accept that fact..music will flourish, bloom and all will be right with the Universe!! All this "shadow-boxing" regarding "all is the same" is interesting in this strange dimension that surrounds Audio. Go with you own prejudices and be happy. Very important to your Audio happiness! Leonard... __________________________________________________ _____ On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:11:48 +0000, Thomas A wrote: Is there any published DBT of amps, CD players or cables where the number of trials are greater than 500? If there difference is miniscule there is likely that many "guesses" are wrong and would require many trials to reveal any subtle difference? Thomas |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:u_h0b.195707$o%2.91075@sccrnsc02 I'm glad to see that someone doesn't let himself be intimidated by people who believe that heaping up adjectives like "lame, weak, stupid" will cow a heretic into confessing his sins prior to auto-da- fe. I did a search on the word "stupid" in the RAO archives and found that since the beginning of the year, the leading user of this word is one Ludivoc Mirabel. The same people, or their kin, will deny, against common sense and all evidence, that "proximate' (or whatever obfuscating substitute for one-after-another sequence they choose) listening to A , then to B and then comparing X with A and B is not a problem for many. Here we see an absolutely unbelievable claim - that "proximate" listening is not the same as "one-after-another" listening. No training needed or is it? Listening is at its core a form of physical and mental endeavor, like sports or many professions. Training helps people do better at sports and professions and this is generally thought to be a good thing. yet here we see a tacit claim that somehow training is a bad thing. And how much of it? And who decides when enough is enough? Who decides when a person has enough training - usually its the person themselves, right? On the other hand when someone like myself says that SIMULTANEOUS comparison by the left-right method with random changes suits HIM better he is told that his method is "fatally flawed" or something to that effect. Says who? Just about anybody who has tried it. The problem with simultaneous listening is the poor signal-to-noise ratio. Presuming that the levels are matched, the highest possible SNR for simultaneous listening is 6 dB, and usually the SNR associated with simultaneous listening is zero (0.0) dB. Well- they do. And who are they? People who tried it and found that the 40-100 dB SNR of proximate listening leads to more sensitive results than the 0-6 dB SNR of simultaneous listening. Those who say so of course. We observe that our leading promoter of simultaneous listening argues frequently against blind listening. One unarguable benefit of blind listening is that positive results can't be falsified. Somehow it all fits, no? |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
... In article , All Ears wrote: "Richard D Pierce" wrote in message ... How much listening have I done to this point? Well, none is possible because the system doesn't even exist yet. Yet, I can pretty well predict HOW it will sound or, more importantlu, will the sound fit the clients requirements. Guess this is what they call experience, you know how it will sound because you did similar designs in the past. Actually, no, many of the designs are NOT "similar," though they ALL behave according to the same basic physical rules. Have yet to see even the hint of an exception, event in new and wonderful systems that claim to be operating on "entirely new principals." Generally, it's not necessary to build any more than one or two versions of the prototype for listening purposes, because MOST of the tweaking will have already been done in the design process. So the prototypes are mainly to satisfy the client? No, the prototypes are REQUIRED by the client. Or will you establish a DBT to determine the differences between the prototypes? The differences between the two are differences requested by the client. It is most often the case that they will hand me a set of requirements, I will design and build to that set of requirements, hit the target pretty dead on, and then the client, on listening to the prortypes, discovers that they did not understand their requirements very well. So in some respects, tweaking the prototypes is really the clients tweaking their own expectations. But you fail to understand where a double blind test is required. It is for the purpose of establishing whether a difference can be heard where the differences can be approaching the threshold capability of the listener. In that light, I would and have recommended that the CLIENT engage in a blind listening test where the client has requested a change that I feel is unwarranted. A classic example: in designing a network for a speaker that had to meet a specific cost target, the client insisted, against my recommendations, that the complex conjugate inpedance comensator on the woofer use a very expensive film capacitor, where I had specifically designed in an NP electrolytic. The point where the capacitor is actually active is well outside of the passband of the woofer, the entire conjugate itself is effectively bypassed by a large film capacitor that is the shunt element in the network itself. and is further isolated by a fairly large value resistor, and that whole circuit is, itself, a shunt leg across the driver. Using an NP electrolytic instead of the film cap saved enough money to be spent on stuff that was REALLY important, yet the client insisted the speaker would sound dreadful without it. The client agreed to take one prortype with two networks, both in a box he couldn't see in, and listen to the two by whatever means he chose, save that he wasn't allowed to peak in the box. He and 12 other listeners listening over a period of a month were utterly unable to pick which was which. The blind test proved the assertion, which was supported by solid engineering data, that the cap in that position of the circuit had no audible effect (though there was a measurable difference). It further wasted a month of the clients valuable marketing time. THIS is what separates the pros form the amateurs: most people believe that speaker design is this long, almost endless iterative process of build, tweak, rebuild, tweak again, build yet again, tweak yet again, and so on. Well, it IS, if you have neither the skill, experience, tools or facilities to avoid the process. The vats majority of amateurs and not a small number of commercial speaker companies DO NOT HAVE ANY of the required skill, experience, tools or facilities for efficient, comprehensive and accurate design. When I started many years ago, I made a lot of mistakes. Guess what, I don't make thos emistakes anymore. But if you have some rank amateur who has NO test facilities to verify the changes he makes are what he THINKS they a the guy ius going to end up wandering around blind. His ears ARE NOT GOING TO HELP. You just now admitted, for all to see (including you, I hope), that the brain is too willing to fill in gaps, too adaptable, and too poor at remembering detailed sound images. In that sense you are absolutely right. So how can one be trustful of something YOU have declared so unreliable? Getting carried away?...... No, but you seem to be avoiding the implication of your original statement. I really don't see that, I never claimed that ears can replace math or measurements in engineering, which of course is a natural starting point. I said that there are well know limitations in what to expect from listening. This is why I prefer to make judgements of equipment over a longer period of time. A system that initially sounds fantastic, may reveal flaws by extended listening. Let's kook at an example. A person who has NO measurement or design facility may tweak, by ear, the low frequency tuning of a system until it sounds like what he wants. How does this person know that, in the process, he has not seriously compromised the excursion-limited power handling of the system, or its distortion? He can surely not... Fine, then you can see, with this one example, precisely how untrustworthy the method you implicitly advocate is. I think you are putting the words into my mouth, which method am I supposed to advocate?? Another example: since multi-way speakers are not minimum-phase systems (and understand that "minimum phase" is a very precisely defined term that is nonetheless POORLY understood in the audio community), one can not take the response as shown by your typical "real-time analyzer" or even the aural impression by ear and use it to tweak driver equalization, simply because the frequency response and phase response of non-minimum-phase systems are NOT uniquely linked. I would assume that you are talking about phase coherent designs, which I do know a little about. Dynamic linearity is also quite important to get a good result. Well you fell into the trap, as almost every person in the high-end indistry does, because they hear "phase" and then immediately conjure up advertising slogans and a pile of utter hooey written by high-end magazine wonks who haven't the faintest clue about what they are talking about. Okay the term "Phase coherence" may be worn out or ill defined. The term "minimum-phase" has a very precise, well understood meaning, it seems, everywhere but in high-end audio. A "minimum- phase" system is ANY system whose amplitude response and phase response are unique transforms of one another. It DOES NOT mean "phase coherent,: because "phase coherent" is a vague, ill-defined term that is more advertising hooey than anything else. A 'minimum-phase' system is onewhere if you take the frequency response of the system and mathematically calculate the phase response from that (which you can do via a mathematical operation called the 'Hilbert transform'), and compare it to the actual MEASURED phase of the system, they will be the same. If the two are NOT the same, then the system is non-minimum- phase and the difference between the two is called,, cleverly enough, the system's 'excess phase.' Now, are 'minimum phase systems' inherently better? Well, 'minimum phase' is NOT a measure of 'quality' in the sense that you might want to know at all. For instance, every listener has a component in their system which is a non-minimum-phase component that they can never avoid. The non-minimum-phase behavior of this component is very large and quite variable. Are all high-end systems (indeed ALL audio systems) inherently bad because of it? Well, with such a scary term like 'non-minimum- phase, you'dthink so, right? Wrong, because the component I'm talking about is simply the air between you and the speakers. It's a simple perfectly linear delay, and simple linear delays have non-minimum phase behavior. How? Well, if your were to measure the response of this delay, it would have a flat frequency response. The phase response derived via the Hilbert transform is a flat phase response. But the MEASURED phase response is decidely not flat. The reason is because of the delay. Yet no one is going to argue that the non-minimum-phase result of listening to the acoustical delay between the speakers and your ears is a bad thing. (the delay, by the way, has a linear phase response) But the point of all this is that non-minimum phase systems, which ALL speakers with crossovers are, do not necesarily behave in a manner that is intuitive. You might see a dip in the response and be inclined to diddle with the crossover to equalize the dip out, only to find that the dip is STILL there despite the clear change in equalization. Rverberent rooms behave the same way, having non-minimum-phase response. You see a big peak in the amplitude response due to some big resonance, your minimum-phase brain and your minimum-phase equalizer want to fill in that hole, and you push a knob down, only to find that the peak is STILL there, the excessive reveration that causes the peak is STILL there, and now the whole system sounds WORSE because not only have you NOT corrected the non-minimum-phase problem with a minimum phase solution, you've also screwed up the direct-arrival frequency response a bunch. Oh, did you know that each band of a graphic equalizer has nice minimum phase response? That makes them better, right? Setting up another trap, are we Let's just go outside and listen to oneway speakers. I think you gave the answer yourself, above. How many people in the high-end business, in YOUR store, know what "minimum phase" means? I'll bet dollars to donuts the answer is a very small number, yet it is a crucial concept in loudspeaker design. I don't really have a store, but a listening room where interested people can book an appointment. Whatever, if you told one of your visitors to define "minimum phase," what do you suppose they might say? I could easily prove that most visitors are ignorant fools, but I choose not to do this. I'd rather help them in finding a system that matches their needs. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
In article cJs0b.200002$o%2.92503@sccrnsc02,
(Audio Guy) writes: In article u_h0b.195707$o%2.91075@sccrnsc02, (ludovic mirabel) writes: I'm glad to see that someone doesn't let himself be intimidated by people who believe that heaping up adjectives like "lame, weak, stupid" will cow a heretic into confessing his sins prior to auto-da- fe. I dare you to quote anyone using those terms about anyone on this group. I'm surprised the moderators let you claim such an outrageous thing. Sorry, my mistake, you yourself have used those terms quite a few times, so someone has used them in the past. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nousaine" Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:00 PM Subject: Blindtest question "All Ears" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message news:CvZ%a.140179$cF.51788@rwcrnsc53... "All Ears" wrote: Unless you have 'unlimited' resources it surely must have. I'm not ashamed of spending $2000 to design and build the world's most accomplished subwoofer When a guy building some of the best speakers in the world suggests me to use either brand A or brand B in cables, I think it would be silly at least not to try these? So who does this? If you want names and brands, I can mail these to you. I'm interested. Okay, I'll mail you some info. In order to build these speakers, his ears must be good and he must know what he is doing. So if I find that he is right, I'll buy the cables. If this is all true why doesn't his speaker come with the cables? Is he purposley allowing some of his customers to have substandard sound with his speakers. People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. But he's purposely limiting the sound of his speakers when they're sold, knowing that they'd sound better with better wire and NOT supplying that wire with the product? No actually not, because the recommendation of wires are different with the various system configurations. Interestingly enough, different cables are recommended for SS and tubed amplifiers. What I find interesting here, is that a guy capable of designing fantastic speakers, would recommend cables if there really is no difference. What I find surprising is that such a person wouldn't deliver his speakers with the best-sounding wire as a package. As answer above.. These speakers has been refined and improved over many years, going systematically through all components of the construction. I am sure that most people would not be able to hear difference from the individual little improvements, but when it all adds up, it does give a notisable difference. KE Ah the series, cumulative tweak argument. I put that to the test in "To Tweak or Not." No cigar. Why should you be ashamed in spending $2000 on building the world's most accomplished subwoofer? If you can prove this in a DBT, I'll buy one from you KE You can't "buy" one; you'll have to make it. Want a scheme get a back issue of the June '99 Sound & Vision. Want to know what "wires" are used? Ask me. And? Okay, okay, tell me then.......... KE |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:5Ks0b.201187$YN5.140840@sccrnsc01...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message news:u_h0b.195707$o%2.91075@sccrnsc02 On the other hand when someone like myself says that SIMULTANEOUS comparison by the left-right method with random changes suits HIM better he is told that his method is "fatally flawed" or something to that effect. Says who? Just about anybody who has tried it. The problem with simultaneous listening is the poor signal-to-noise ratio. Presuming that the levels are matched, the highest possible SNR for simultaneous listening is 6 dB, and usually the SNR associated with simultaneous listening is zero (0.0) dB. Besides, Mr. Mirabel's comparisons were done only single-blind and were not level-matched. The lack of level-matching makes the whole thing a joke, really. Even a slight mismatch will result in an easily perceivable image shift, a perception that, while real, is completely meaningless if you ultimately intend to use the same cable in both channels. Well- they do. And who are they? People who tried it and found that the 40-100 dB SNR of proximate listening leads to more sensitive results than the 0-6 dB SNR of simultaneous listening. Those who say so of course. We observe that our leading promoter of simultaneous listening argues frequently against blind listening. One unarguable benefit of blind listening is that positive results can't be falsified. Somehow it all fits, no? Well, even I'll defend Mirabel here. He hasn't argued against blind testing (though he hasn't conceded its absolute necessity for difference tests, either). What he's argued against is proximate comparisons. He says he gets confused, and then he can't tell things apart. (He's not confused, of course. He just refuses to believe what his ears are telling him!) bob |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
Tom said
So he designs speakers with the knowledge that the speakers won't be optimal with the wire in the speaker and that there is no way of knowing in advance how the speaker will sound in any given system? Every speaker manufacturer does this. Duh. Or should they include a complimentary ideal room with their speakers? |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
snip
So who does this? If you want names and brands, I can mail these to you. I'm interested. Okay, I'll mail you some info. Thanks in advance. Info was mailed to you yesterday. In order to build these speakers, his ears must be good and he must know what he is doing. So if I find that he is right, I'll buy the cables. If this is all true why doesn't his speaker come with the cables? Is he purposley allowing some of his customers to have substandard sound with his speakers. People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. But he's purposely limiting the sound of his speakers when they're sold, knowing that they'd sound better with better wire and NOT supplying that wire with the product? No actually not, because the recommendation of wires are different with the various system configurations. So he designs speakers with the knowledge that the speakers won't be optimal with the wire in the speaker and that there is no way of knowing in advance how the speaker will sound in any given system? And that different wires will improve things on-site? If this is true, because he can't test all amplifiers, components and wires ever used, he has no prior knowledge of how his speakers will sound in any given system other than the one used in design. Is wires or amps made a big difference with any given speaker HOW can any speaker designer make and sell any speaker in good conscience unless he has a complete system specification in advance? And if the system contains any device of the thousands available that were not part of the original design/validation process who's to say that it would be acceptable in any given system Surely not the maker or the point-of-sale representative. There are actually two versions of this speakers, one optimized for SS the other for tubes. A few SS designs are however recommended to be used with the "tube harness" So this is one step further than I have seen anybody else go. These are not over-the-counter type mass produced speakers. Anybody investing in this kind of equipment, should do some home work before the actual purchase. Since these speakers are rather revealing, connecting them to the "wrong" equipment, can be a rather unpleasent experience. Interestingly enough, different cables are recommended for SS and tubed amplifiers. What I find interesting here, is that a guy capable of designing fantastic speakers, would recommend cables if there really is no difference. So how can he allow ANY cable that he has not personally validated be used with his speakers? Shouldn't he refuse to sell product to someone who has not certified his cable kit? I don't think so, some may prefer a zip cord. It is not unusual for his customers to call and ask for advice, if the desired result cannot be obtained. It is usually possible for him to pin point the possible problems, which could be cables in some situations. What I find surprising is that such a person wouldn't deliver his speakers with the best-sounding wire as a package. As answer above.. No satisfactory answer there. IF these speaker require a given set(s) of cables to perform optimally than why aren't they supplied with the speaker? I see your point, but what about amplifier, CD player, etc., etc. It will be a pretty big bulk package if taken to the full extend. These speakers has been refined and improved over many years, going systematically through all components of the construction. I am sure that most people would not be able to hear difference from the individual little improvements, but when it all adds up, it does give a notisable difference. KE Ah the series, cumulative tweak argument. I put that to the test in "To Tweak or Not." No cigar. Why should you be ashamed in spending $2000 on building the world's most accomplished subwoofer? If you can prove this in a DBT, I'll buy one from you KE You can't "buy" one; you'll have to make it. Want a scheme get a back issue of the June '99 Sound & Vision. Want to know what "wires" are used? Ask me. And? Okay, okay, tell me then.......... KE The Equalizer amp lead is a 36-foot rca cable that came in the box with an inexpensive subwoofer product. The power amp lead is a 'junk box' rca rescued from my parts box. The 'internal' wiring of the 8 drivers was accomplished with 16 gauge zip cord sold as car speaker wire as was the amplifier connection. Does this work? Well find a subwoofer that will deliver 120 dB+ from 12 to 62 Hz at 2-meters in a real room. There are zero commercial products that will do this. And it's not just raw acoustical power. The system is perfectly integrated with the 7 channel surround system and provides better-then-high end full bandwidth sound quality. I have seen pictures of your design, looks pretty impressive. Already considering to build one KE |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
On 21 Aug 2003 00:33:06 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
Actually getting things dropped down the throat is an issue because I don't use a full cloth grille: too much flapping.. The answer to that dilemma is removable individual woofer mounting panels. It's also not clear from photos but the whole deal was designed so the system can be used with up to sixteen 8,10 12-inch woofers or eight 15 or 18-inch devices. Where can we view these photos of your system ? Bill Eckle Vanity Web page at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
Penury wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 00:33:06 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Actually getting things dropped down the throat is an issue because I don't use a full cloth grille: too much flapping.. The answer to that dilemma is removable individual woofer mounting panels. It's also not clear from photos but the whole deal was designed so the system can be used with up to sixteen 8,10 12-inch woofers or eight 15 or 18-inch devices. Where can we view these photos of your system ? Bill Eckle Vanity Web page at: http://www.wmeckle.com Photos were published in the June 1999 Sound and Vision in the article "The Subwoofer That Shook The World." (not my title.) I'm also developing a web-site but it may be awhile before it's operational. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
"All Ears" wrote in message ...
Snip Why should you be ashamed in spending $2000 on building the world's most accomplished subwoofer? If you can prove this in a DBT, I'll buy one from you KE You can't "buy" one; you'll have to make it. Want a scheme get a back issue of the June '99 Sound & Vision. Want to know what "wires" are used? Ask me. And? Okay let me guess, 10 gauge wire? I admit cheating, saw a little info about your sub, looks like it will move some air! Although I would hate my baby boy to get stuck down there....not sure the woofers could handle this... KE I'll just add that the cables recommended (by the contructor at Ino Audio) to the most competent commercial speaker system I know of is cheap EKK 2.5mm2 cable. And this system can play high SPL with very low distortion. http://www.studioblue.se/images/monitorsystem.jpg Thomas |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
"All Ears" wrote: .....snips.... ---- Original Message ----- From: "Nousaine" Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:00 PM Subject: Blindtest question When a guy building some of the best speakers in the world suggests me to use either brand A or brand B in cables, I think it would be silly at least not to try these? So who does this? If you want names and brands, I can mail these to you. I'm interested. Okay, I'll mail you some info. Thanks in advance. In order to build these speakers, his ears must be good and he must know what he is doing. So if I find that he is right, I'll buy the cables. If this is all true why doesn't his speaker come with the cables? Is he purposley allowing some of his customers to have substandard sound with his speakers. People are free to do what they like and want, however advise is free and obtional. But he's purposely limiting the sound of his speakers when they're sold, knowing that they'd sound better with better wire and NOT supplying that wire with the product? No actually not, because the recommendation of wires are different with the various system configurations. So he designs speakers with the knowledge that the speakers won't be optimal with the wire in the speaker and that there is no way of knowing in advance how the speaker will sound in any given system? And that different wires will improve things on-site? If this is true, because he can't test all amplifiers, components and wires ever used, he has no prior knowledge of how his speakers will sound in any given system other than the one used in design. Is wires or amps made a big difference with any given speaker HOW can any speaker designer make and sell any speaker in good conscience unless he has a complete system specification in advance? And if the system contains any device of the thousands available that were not part of the original design/validation process who's to say that it would be acceptable in any given system Surely not the maker or the point-of-sale representative. Interestingly enough, different cables are recommended for SS and tubed amplifiers. What I find interesting here, is that a guy capable of designing fantastic speakers, would recommend cables if there really is no difference. So how can he allow ANY cable that he has not personally validated be used with his speakers? Shouldn't he refuse to sell product to someone who has not certified his cable kit? What I find surprising is that such a person wouldn't deliver his speakers with the best-sounding wire as a package. As answer above.. No satisfactory answer there. IF these speaker require a given set(s) of cables to perform optimally than why aren't they supplied with the speaker? These speakers has been refined and improved over many years, going systematically through all components of the construction. I am sure that most people would not be able to hear difference from the individual little improvements, but when it all adds up, it does give a notisable difference. KE Ah the series, cumulative tweak argument. I put that to the test in "To Tweak or Not." No cigar. Why should you be ashamed in spending $2000 on building the world's most accomplished subwoofer? If you can prove this in a DBT, I'll buy one from you KE You can't "buy" one; you'll have to make it. Want a scheme get a back issue of the June '99 Sound & Vision. Want to know what "wires" are used? Ask me. And? Okay, okay, tell me then.......... KE The Equalizer amp lead is a 36-foot rca cable that came in the box with an inexpensive subwoofer product. The power amp lead is a 'junk box' rca rescued from my parts box. The 'internal' wiring of the 8 drivers was accomplished with 16 gauge zip cord sold as car speaker wire as was the amplifier connection. Does this work? Well find a subwoofer that will deliver 120 dB+ from 12 to 62 Hz at 2-meters in a real room. There are zero commercial products that will do this. Tom, Ino Audio produce subwoofer systems that produce extremely high SPL at low frequencies. The Ino Audio Profundus Z-4 vented system can pump 80 liters of air peak to peak at 20 Hz. Thomas And it's not just raw acoustical power. The system is perfectly integrated with the 7 channel surround system and provides better-then-high end full bandwidth sound quality. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
|
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
(Nousaine) wrote in message news:TSq1b.170244$cF.59291@rwcrnsc53...
(Thomas A) wrote: Tom, Ino Audio produce subwoofer systems that produce extremely high SPL at low frequencies. The Ino Audio Profundus Z-4 vented system can pump 80 liters of air peak to peak at 20 Hz. Can you give me a reference? Displacement is the key element. There is no reference on the web, other than the explanation of the system given by Ingvar Öhman, the contructor of the speakers. I think you've seen the thread befo http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...m%26 rnum%3D2 Thomas |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:TSq1b.170244$cF.59291@rwcrnsc53... (Thomas A) wrote: Tom, Ino Audio produce subwoofer systems that produce extremely high SPL at low frequencies. The Ino Audio Profundus Z-4 vented system can pump 80 liters of air peak to peak at 20 Hz. Can you give me a reference? Displacement is the key element. There is no reference on the web, other than the explanation of the system given by Ingvar Öhman, the contructor of the speakers. I think you've seen the thread befo http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...a94e5p01ahs%40 enews1.newsguy.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dino%2Baudio%2Bgroup:rec.audio ..high-end%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.audio.high-end%26se lm%3Da94e5p01ahs%2540enews1. newsguy.com%26rnum%3D2 Thoma Oh yeah I'd forgotten that. It seems that this system is just a fig-newton of someone's imagination 80 liters is the equivalent of 14 small block Chevy V8s. My current system uses 8 23.5-mm Xmax 15-inch woofers and it's maximum displacement is about 34 liters. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blindtest question
(Nousaine) wrote in message news:9Y82b.247987$uu5.54965@sccrnsc04...
(Nousaine) wrote in message news:TSq1b.170244$cF.59291@rwcrnsc53... (Thomas A) wrote: Tom, Ino Audio produce subwoofer systems that produce extremely high SPL at low frequencies. The Ino Audio Profundus Z-4 vented system can pump 80 liters of air peak to peak at 20 Hz. Can you give me a reference? Displacement is the key element. There is no reference on the web, other than the explanation of the system given by Ingvar Ã?hman, the contructor of the speakers. I think you've seen the thread befo http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...a94e5p01ahs%40 enews1.newsguy.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dino%2Baudio%2Bgroup:rec.audio .high-end%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.audio.high-end%26se lm%3Da94e5p01ahs%2540enews1. newsguy.com%26rnum%3D2 Thoma Oh yeah I'd forgotten that. It seems that this system is just a fig-newton of someone's imagination I'm not sure what you mean fig-newton , but I guess that it's hardto believe the numbers given (which have been measured in the studio). If you at anytime travel to Sweden, it might be possible for you to both hear and measure the system, located in Stockholm. But you would need to contact Ino and/or Studio Blue for a demonstration. 80 liters is the equivalent of 14 small block Chevy V8s. My current system uses 8 23.5-mm Xmax 15-inch woofers and it's maximum displacement is about 34 liters. Ino also sell systems called Profundus Infra-10 which are 10 x 15 inch woofers in closed box configuration. T |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
| capacitor + parallel wiring question? | Car Audio | |||
| Sub + amp wiring question | Car Audio | |||
| Subwoofer box question | Car Audio | |||
| Subwoofer position question | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
