Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"All Ears" John,
I would recommend you to find a good high-end dealer in your area, where you can evaluate the components as a system. Bring your own equipment or make an arrangement to borrow components with you home for evaluation. I have one around the corner from me and another 20 minutes away. The one arond the corner carries a very limtied selection and sells strictly for MSRP. Their inventory is small. Probably why they've stayed in business so long, everything they have they own. They don't do the high interest loans from the mfg's. The one 20 minutes away is mid-fi catering to HT. I am surprised to see how many people buying and selling components with great loss, never really finding what they want. To me it is better to see purchase of audio equipment as one of the big investments in life, once the right equipment is there, it will give so much pleasure for so many years. You will at least need an upgrade path that has some sort of plan to it, if you cannot afford everything at once. I agree. I do not buy equipment so I can buy more. The Adcom stuff I bought back in 94-95 and only changed those out to match the new speakers. The previous ones were stolen during a burglery. If you did not do it already, make a dedicated mains line all the way from the breaker box. It is a relatively small investment, and it can change a lot. If the mains line you are using now is choked or polluded with noise, you may never get what you want. I have considred this. It is difficult due to house construction. My wiring runs through the attic which is floored. Flooring would have to be ripped up. If you like, I can mail you some recommendations for equipment to evaluate. That would be wonderful! KE PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack amplifier is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem. Actually the opposite..no not opposite as it's detailed and yet musical. Most musical amp I've had so far. Sounds wonderful with all the speakers listed in previous post. I've got the Adcom gear hooked to the Revels here in the back room. Music is crystal clear and sharp but not emotional or musical. Co-worker has the Revel M-20s as well. He's running them with a newer receiver of some sort. I lent him the Adcom gear so he could hear what a difference makes when you have dedicated power supplies vice one power supply in a rcvr which is powering everything. He loved the power the Adcom gave him but his words were, " it's not musical! It was lifeless! Dead. Everything was there but the music". Matched my thoughts on Revel/Adcom. I would love to have more power to drive the M20's as the McC amp is only 125w/ch. I've not heard its bigger sibling but have read reviews that stated it wasn't as musical as its little brother. I keep reading that tubes are liquid and mate with my horns perfectly for a magical joining. I would be willing to keep the big horns on if that did happen. They're excellent with McC amp now. I just hate having the $$M20's sitting here in this tiny back room where I need the space going to waste. Toss up quandary. Keep the big horns or the little M20's? Both excellent just different. The 20's have a quieter background. Guess that is due to the LaSacalas having 104db sensitivity. When they're playing they're wonderful; when idle there's a slight hiss coming through. If I remember correctly that wasn't the case with the Adcom. Ah....! On another note, the Adcom sits well with the horns as well but after a while I find myself wishing the McC was back in the system. As soon as the McC is plugged in, my ears let me know I'm happy and give a big sigh. It takes about two weeks to notice that I don't like the Adcom with the horns. I would like to try their newer stuff since they switched to MOSFET's. I have not heard the 5802 but sure would like to. As you can tell I do not have a budget for $20k amps. I do however have an excellent $18,600 stereo system. Sound is ok but the scenery and feel while listening to it is awesome. Its called a 2003 Harley Davidson Electra Glide Classic w/cd player (aka geezer glide). Man! It is great to listen to music while enjoying the communion with our Lord. Knees in the breeze. John |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
All Ears ) wrote:
: -snip- : : KE : PS I have heard from a guy who's ears I trust, that the McCormack amplifier : is detailed, but not musical, could be part of your problem. I also hate to see folks on the upgrade path and try to avoid it all possible costs. But, there is a comment of some relevance here.... I to have a McCormack DNA 1.0 DeLux. It is a bit "dark" IMHO - sounding more like *some* tube amps. But I have it paired with Apogee's which IMHO can be a bit bright. Very serendipidous, especially with the right cabling. Thus it is also IMHO very musical. But for those without this useful pairing, the McCormack upgrade path (which I simply haven't had the finances to do), should reduce some of the perceived dark/slow effects that are there with some speaker/cable combinations. It seems to me that they are reducing the complexity of the circuits a bit to produce this effect, but that is for sure in the area of "guessing" and not factual. -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:xEkYa.56108$cF.20378@rwcrnsc53...
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message news:Bg0Ya.75734$o%2.36476@sccrnsc02... Yup, basically. The level of ignorance and witchcraft and snake oil in the high-end is almost embarrasing. Other engineering field pay FAR better and are FAR less frustrating and FAR more rewarding to be in. A competent engineering with solid background can make an order of magnitude MORE money elsewhere. Beyond that, working with some of the utter hooey like magic stones, wooden pucks, water filled wire, green CD pens (which, by the way, started as an April Fool's joke), impedance matching CD fluids (another April Fool's joke), blue LED dithering CD players, funny looking wooden thingies in the room, electron- aligning clock radios, magic wire, funky feedback bricks, and all the rest is at first discouraging, then amusing to a competent engineer. OK, I agree that there are lots of quacks and charalatans and incompetents in the business. Maybe they are the majority, but I must believe that some of the manufacturers are more than snake oil peddlers. Your brush is tarring the entire industry. Really? Mr. Williams, please read carefully what you just wrote: "I agree that there are lots of quacks and charalatans and incompetents in the business. Maybe they are the majority" If you, indeed, agree that there are lots of quacks and charlatains and incompetents, and maybe they are the majority, precisely WHO is "tarring the entire industry?" Not I. It would seem that the industry, such as it is, does a fine job of tarring itself. It's like the old saying: "Y'know, 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name." |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04 9P0Za.103177$YN5.71752@sccrnsc01
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Arny Krueger ) wrote: : "Lou Anschuetz" wrote in message : news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04 : Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only : please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She : typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell : you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has : been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I : believe to be the change. : "She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change." : There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that : statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some deeper : thought. See below. : Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted : both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting. : This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be : nothing but counter-evidence. Which would be? : To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising : about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived) : sound quality without (verbal) prompting. : The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003 : class schedule: : "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences". : Perhaps some auditing might be possible? Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with emphasis on experimental), as well as computing. I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made as there have been occassions when observations are made without any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment, no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on). I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in principle with assertions that these things (especially cables) would sound different. But for those who have listened (often with negative bias), the evidence is observed. The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues. In theory all things should be the same that measure the same, but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects, semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight (often rightly so). Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't. Are they wrong? Well sure ;- -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Noussaine wrote, concerning the nonexistence of "magic numbers"
Flat response over the audible range, clipping less than 1% of the time, level matched and no operating fault. may be reading this too literally, so let me rephrase it for confirmation: Any amplifier that has flat response over the audible range, that in use is clipping less than 1% of the time, is level matched ( to what? right and left matched to each othere?), and has no operating fault will meet the criteria of being a "competent design" will be sonically indistinguishable from any other amplifier that meets the same criteria. The problem is that none of these things EVER get controlled in casual listening tests. About the only factor that seems to be in doubt is the clipping. And people will 'take' an uncontrolled test as personal 'evidence.' Yes, I have done so many times in the past, and have been told on RAHE that I was wrongheaded to do so. Maybe I have been wrong to trust my personal uncontrolled observations. I am trying to keep an open mind and listen to the contrary view put forth by several contributors on RAHE. I am unconvinced, but still participating. Wylie Williams |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Lou Anschuetz wrote:
Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. Can you explain then why not one cable manufacturer has shown that their cables are distinguishable from others under controlled conditions, if the cables under test are comparable in the sense that they can be matched in amplitude response to about 0.1 dB in the audio band? What does Occam's Razor say about that? There is a fairly large standing award for anyone who can tell cables apart via DBT. Why hasn't anyone (or you yourself) claimed that award? And you said your wife can always tell that there are differences, no? If she can do it every time, why is this stuff hard to repeatedly observe? Maybe she should claim that award and put this issue to bed? But much of this argument is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't. Are they wrong? Well sure ;- Totally wrong analogy. No one says that it's wrong to like a certain cable because of the way it looks or for other reasons. It's a very weak technical position, however, to insist that there is an audible difference between that and others based on sighted tests, while ignoring the existing body of knowledge on human auditory perception limits, and on human psychology. I am actually very surprised that such a position is stated by someone with advanced training in pyschology and in problem-solving. Plus, I hope that you can pass a DBT on sorbet vs other cold desserts . -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Lou Anschuetz" wrote in message
news:s4v_a.137142$Ho3.16682@sccrnsc03 PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04 9P0Za.103177$YN5.71752@sccrnsc01 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Arny Krueger ) wrote: "Lou Anschuetz" wrote in message news:u2PYa.97353$uu5.14034@sccrnsc04 Amen and amen. My wife is a musician (acoustic instruments only please) and a CPA and she could care less about technology. She typically doesn't know when I've switched something and yet can tell you that I have if it makes a difference (some things don't). This has been true for over 20 years. She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change. "She will also usually verbalize what I believe to be the change." There are a number of possible interpretations/explanations of that statement. I'm hoping that just mentioning that fact will prompt some deeper thought. See below. Amazingly to the amps is amps/cables is cables crowd, she has spotted both amp and cable changes in sound without any prompting. This statement indicates a state of mind for which there appears to be nothing but counter-evidence. Which would be? To clarify, amps is amps/cables is cables crowd finds nothing surprising about a household member spotting, as it was said, changes in (perceived) sound quality without (verbal) prompting. The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003 class schedule: "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences". Perhaps some auditing might be possible? Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with emphasis on experimental), as well as computing. I am (painfully) aware of psychological bias. My comments were made as there have been occasions when observations are made without any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment, no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on). It would appear that only the grossest of evidence of predisposition is being considerered. It is well known and has been illustrated many times that simply knowing that two pieces of equipment are involved in a test, predisposes that test to a positive outcome. You can conceal whether or not the test involves two different pieces of equipment from the listeners, make no equipment changes during the tests, and the listeners will generally still claim that they hear audible differences. I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in principle with assertions that these things (especially cables) would sound different. But for those who have listened (often with negative bias), the evidence is observed. There's three requirements for a valid listening test involving subtle or controversial differences: (1) level matching (2) time synchronization (3) bias control(s) (i.e., double blind). How were these requirements met in the tests being described above? The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues. In theory all things should be the same that measure the same, but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects, semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight (often rightly so). They uniformly collapse when items 1-3 above are properly attended to. Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You bet. Not really. The literature of subjective testing covers test subject bias and addressing it, quite well. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't. Discussions of different flavors of sound become moot when there are serious lapses in listening test protocols. Are they wrong? Well sure For sure! |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote: Richard Pierce wrote Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for, you ain't ever going to find it. Unfortunately if we summarize the expert information on RAHE we are being told that Unfortunately your summary is largely wrong: a. Manufacturers are all incompetent liars, charlatans, and more, so we can't trust them Ditto dealers. No one said that, did they. YOU are the one who suggested that possibly the majority are cranks, charlatains and incomeptents, remeber? b. Unscientific listening comparisons are folly. No one said that, not of any credibility. Indeed, if you would please recall, I have made the statement on numerous occasions that ANY means that any given individual uses for selection of equipment that suits THEIR needs is completely valid. c. ABX DBT and the rest are the way to go but they are seldom performed, so forget them. Again, who said that. It has been stated that if one is interested in determining whether, in fact, detectable differences exist based SOLELY on the intrinsic differences in sound, then controlled means are needed to ensure that other factors do no influence the detection. d,. When performed "correctly" they show that all competently designed components sound as good as each other. And you have reasonable data to suggest to the contrary? Where is it? e. But there is no agreement as to what constitutes competence in design Certainly not in the high-end world, and maybe not even in the world as a whole, but for different reasons. All engineering choices are compromises for one set of reasons or another, thus there is noperfect realizable solution. That's the nature of engineering. IN high-end audio, it's sometimes a choice amongst the worst of evils. f. There is a correct "suite of measurements", but Mr. Pierce cannot share it or name names/models that qualify because of prefessional constraints. Nonsense. The "suite of measurements" exists and has been discussed at length in the the appropriate press (see JAES, JASA, and so on), the high-end world simply continues to wallow in its self-congratulatory swamp. That's an entirely different issue than my long-stated policy of not making brand endorsements. Hmmmm? Hmmm, indeed. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Wylie Williams wrote:
Richard Pierce wrote Any attempts, even well-intentioned ones, to some up with simples figure-of-merit measurements is foolish. The suite of measurements to determine things is FAR more complex than a 0.01% here or a .25 dB there. If that's what you're looking for, you ain't ever going to find it. Unfortunately if we summarize the expert information on RAHE we are being told that a. Manufacturers are all incompetent liars, charlatans, and more, so we can't trust them Ditto dealers. No one said that. b. Unscientific listening comparisons are folly. ...for verifying the existence of audible differences between certain classes of components. c. ABX DBT and the rest are the way to go but they are seldom performed, so forget them. No one said that. d,. When performed "correctly" they show that all competently designed components sound as good as each other. No one said that. e. But there is no agreement as to what constitutes competence in design No one said that. f. There is a correct "suite of measurements", but Mr. Pierce cannot share it or name names/models that qualify because of prefessional constraints. That's not what he said. Hmmmm? Hmm indeed. In summary, you did a lousy job of summarizing. -- -S. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Nousaine" wrote
Testing yourself is easy. Find an amplifier or some other device that modern science says should be transparent and test yourself with someone else operating the switch. Check out pcabx. All you need is a rational amount of bias control. Also recall all those times when you 'fooled' yourself when the switch wasn't in the position you had thought it was. That first step alone is a tricky one. "Find an amplifier or some other device that modern science says should be transparent ". You would think this was a settled subject. I have asked on RAHE what the criteria for judging "competent design" components and before it morphed into a "bash the home speaker builder" fest there were several helpful posts that led me to believe that amps, for example could be screened by reference to available measurements. Of course there was a post from a designer with extremely professional credentials and experience that seemed to say that the measurements avialable to the public were incomplete. Apparently the criteria of modern science in this regard are in flux. So if I hear a difference it's because I didn't select the product carefully enough? How to select? Wylie Williams |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Nousaine ) wrote:
: What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is known : about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common : assertion. Ok, let me go into painful detail I'm sitting in a chair facing away from the door when I'm startled to find someone behind me (the entrance is behind me and hence invisible in the darkened room) who enters silently (making me jump out of the chair) and speaks words like - "wow, that bass sounds a lot better," or "I couldn't hear those cymbals before." These are not "clever Hans" kinds of episodes. If they were, then obviously the value would be gone. But instead, they are someone hearing a difference and seeking out someone to tell. Do every amp/cable change make differences? Absolutely not. Do some, absolutely. And as per other comments, cost/appearance/smell whatever aren't going to be players in this situation. Can I put *any* kind of parameters on which ones will produce the effect? Nope. The trend with speaker cables has tipped towards better with more cost, but it is not unilateral. With (better )amps it is much more pronounced. : Let me give you another. A few years ago I was the proctor in a challenge blind : test on amplifier sound. During the first trial I was in an adjacent room with : the wife of the subject. She made statements to me during the trial "The : difference is obvious to me even from here." : Later after the test was completed she asked about the first trial and said : "well amp X was in the system for that first trial right?" But she was wrong. : So the next day we repeated the experiment with her as the sole subject. And : she was was not able to reliably identify the PASS amp from the Yamaha : integrated amplifier test device. : So, in general, "untainted" onservations from family members have been shown to : be unreliable from the extant evidence. Obviously writing is not where I make my living My point in bringing any of this up is that I can readily rule out any of the common ways of this information being communicated since I know what they are and yet it still sometimes happens. It is fortunate that it is rare actually or I'd be having to take blood pressure medication for those times when I was absolute made to jump out of my chair by the statement coming from behind me. : : : The following course appears on the Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2003 : : class schedule: : : : "36309 Experimental Design for Behavioral and Social Sciences". : : : Perhaps some auditing might be possible? : Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with : emphasis on experimental), as well as computing. : : I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made : as there have been occassions when observations are made without : any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment, : no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on). : : I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both : the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in : principle with assertions that these things (especially cables) : would sound different. But for those who have listened (often : with negative bias), the evidence is observed. : What evidence? Please post same one way or the other with details. I covered this elsewhere, but the usual response is "wow, that sounds different" followed by "but that's impossible." This is *not* scientific evidence, but rather strictly oberservational. I'm not convinced it could be replicated via DBT. The ironic part of this to me is that 10 years ago I spent a lot of time making fun of my one-and-only audiophile friend over his painful selections of cables/amps/etc. I even went to his house to prove to him that he was absolutely completely wrong. I came away needing to go visit audio retailers and finding things that I liked/disliked. My wife was truly irritated about this since she thought it was a completely frivolous use of money. But, every time she'd end up stating something like "crap, I like this one better." Since having a child I've spent next to nothing on upgrades/changes since I have another outlet for that income. There are a few things I would change at present, but not many since I made pretty good choices. As such, I have no vested interest in finding components that sound better since I'm not going to buy them. : : The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues. : In theory all things should be the same that measure the same, : No one has ever made that claim. It's trivially easy to find measureable : differences between any two samples of the same device. The question with audio : products is whether those "differences" exceed the threshold of audibility in : an acoustical sense. You are correct and I did incorrectly state the problem. It is more that there can be many explanations (hence my Occam reference) and if that makes any difference. : but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects, : semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations : soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight : (often rightly so). : : Is this stuff hard to quantify/identify/repeatedly observe? You : bet. Are there differences - IMHO yes. But much of this argument : is simply mental masturbation. I like sorbet, some folks don't. : Are they wrong? Well sure ;- : -- : Lou Anschuetz, : Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University : You have a "course?" Want a guest lecture? I haven't taught for several years, which is both good and bad (I always learned more from the students than they could from me on the whole, and that is a loss). These days it would have to be a course on "listening" and "hearing." which are clearly not the same thing. Having a child approaching adolescence makes that abundently clear ;-) -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Lou Anschuetz wrote:
hsv_a.136546$o%2.58712@sccrnsc02 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Steven Sullivan ) wrote: : Lou Anschuetz wrote: : Actually, I already hold advanced degrees in Psychology (with : emphasis on experimental), as well as computing. : I am (painfully) aware of pschological bias. My comments were made : as there have been occassions when observations are made without : any predisposing evidence (e.g. no recent packages of equipment, : no obvious time spent tweaking, and so on). : I'm also (painfully!) aware that many of my colleagues from both : the analog and digital side of the world have disagreed in : principle with assertions that these things (especially cables) : would sound different. But for those who have listened (often : with negative bias), the evidence is observed. : And surely your education is psychology should suggest why : that might be so, and yet have *nothing* to do with an actual : audible difference. Surely experimental design and the need : for controls was covered in your graduate coursework. As covered above, these situations were plain when there was no competing explanation. That's my point. This has not occurred when there hasn't been a system change. Yes, these are not competently designed, double-blind, tests, but the fact that the result occurs spontaneously is interesting, especially since there are no false positives (nor false negatives just to cover all the bases). Again, this 'protocol' is far too vague to rule *out* any sort of non-audible 'cues' that might have lead to a report of audible difference. Surely your studies menioned how insidious such cues can be. I bring up the evidence of engineers as their response is more likely to be "that's impossible," "it can't happen," etc. etc. Or , 'Seems unlikely. Have you tested it with controls in place?" Sometimes it is even the retort of "there must be some other explanation." Amusing IMHO, though surely not "scientific." And who, pray tell, is saying there *must* be another explanation? I think you are, however, trying to merge two problems. Can someone reliably say which is which? I think not. Can someone repeatedly notice a change? Yes. Some changes are more desireable to normal human beings. If someone is noticing a change, then logically someone should be able to say which is which. If this were not so then everyone would be buying the same, cheapest amps/cables. Clearly folks going to listening rooms and actually listening find some components "better (whatever that is)." It's astonishing htat you consider this evidence of *anything* as regards audible difference, if you're actually familiar with the idea of perceptual bias. I posit that if all auditions were done blinded, then msot people *would* end up buying cheap amps/cables. What it seems to me you are looking for is an objective standard for "better" so that folks can repeatedly say so in ABX. Wrong. I'm not looking for a standard for 'better'. I'm pointing out an existing standard for establishing 'different'. Once 'different' is reliably established, then 'better' is a subjective call. This assumes that 'better' is only referring to sound, btw. People can and do choose components based on other factors. This, IMHO, is the difficult part of getting ABX to work. I am aware of the extremely quick nature of auditory fatigue (side note - we are on day 2 of 3 days of fire alarm testing so I'm really aware of such fatigue this week And such fatigue can be expected to operate in sighted as well as blinded comparisons. I'm also aware of how easily ears are fooled. One of my research papers called into question the established practice of using verbal echoing. It turned out that folks thought the other voice was their own - even when it clearly wasn't (sometimes even a different gender This is not a published work since some instructors were made a bit nervous by this preliminary finding. But do I think it rules out all possibilities of there being actual differences - not at this point via observation only. I suspect you meant *does not rule out* here. But again you overstate the case. Surely your education included the idea of likelihood. One never actually rules out 'all possibility', one can only reduce the likelihood of such possibilities to a negligable level. It is certainly true that a set of DBT results for one person does not rule out the possibility that other listeners might perform differently. SUbjectivists often point this out, but tey fail to acknowledge at the same time that it doesn't make *their* sighted perceptions *more likely* to be accurate either. : The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues. : In theory all things should be the same that measure the same, : but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects, : semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations : soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight : (often rightly so). : INdeed, as opposed to speculative audibility of 'field effects, : semi-electrically permeable insulators' and the like, we have a : large body of solid data about the fallibility of human perception. : So, what would Occam's Razor suggest is the more likely : explanation that *must* be discounted before one makes claims : for such effects? If those explanations really covered the issue, then they would be repeatable (which you know they are not) and it would be possible just to do better engineering to make things have more/less of one or more these qualities and then have them always sound "better." Indeed. Hasn't been done, AFAIK. Therefore the alternate explanation for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference -- perceptual bias -- still holds sway. But my experience is that the more such explanations are piled on, the more unlikely the explanation to have merit. There has not, to my knowledge, been any conclusive evidence that this or that fact uniformly benefits sound beyond certain basic engineering minimum standards. Indeed. It's what people like Tom Nousaine has been saying for years: competently designed amps and cables operating within their parameters are unlikely to sound different. Therefore the alternative explanation for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference -- perceptual bias -- still holds sway. There are, however, certain "trends" which do seem to help. The obvious "bigger is usually better" and "tighter tolerances are usually better". But I don't see any engineer so far saying that if the field strength is kept at this number in a cable it is always better (in a macro sense only here - obviously inside tubes this is critical). Tighter tolerances are only *audibly* 'better' if the resultant difference falls within the range of human hearing. (Though such tolerances might contribute to build quality, and thus longer functional life.) As for engineers and what they say about cables, youv'e already gotten input from a few here. Their take seems to me to be: cables manfactured according to well-understood electrical constraints will perform in sonically identical fashion. I presume this means that there *are* some boundary numbers for resistance etc. by which design parameters are constrained. So what do I believe makes things sound better? Unfortunately it appears to be a combination of effects in some "correct" distribution. Science is not good at things that have multiple competing factors influencing outcome. Economics and human behavior prediction are two examples of science trying (without much success) to do this accurately. Electron location prediction is another tough one some friends of mine have worked years on. I also hold out hope that a proper analysis of all the variables will one day be possible. Will this be found in ABX? Haven't a clue since I don't know the magnitude of changes possible once all the factors are simultaneously interactively addressable. I think you're needlessly complicating things here, by conflating 'better' and 'different'. Engineers certainly do have *some* parameters which lead to general perception of 'better' or 'worse' sound -- reduction of known forms of audible distortion. But my first concern is determinign whether claims of 'difference' are even jsutified , since they are so extreemely common in audiophilia. One more nut to throw on the pile btw Despite being much closer to retirement than college, I'm interning on running live sound mixing (compressors - ohmygod!). Do I like things to sound different in live vs. recorded venues? Sad to say, yes. Would I like my recorded music to sound more like live? Sometimes, but usually not. Do cables/amps make differences there? You bet. I bet you haven't done a proper test to determine whether it's *only* the cables or *only* the amps that make the difference there. People who listen to transistor radios will show up in the sound booth and tell you so and they have no way to know what you did (sort of an ultimate test in some ways since the venue and artists are the same every week Do they agree on what's different about the sound? Nope. Sometimes even the sound engineers (not me - I'm just a grunt) disagree on the nature of the perceived changes. As expected from psychological data. But, the sound engineers do agree on what sounds "better." Sometimes. -- -S. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Lou Anschuetz wrote:
The summary, though, is that IMHO there is a combination of measureable, but poorly understood, real effects that are producing something that makes the cables/amps (again, not interconnects where I've not been able to observe this) "sound" different. How did you come up with such an opinion? Cables and amplifiers have been designed and used for almost a century now, and you think that there is something still *poorly understood* that made them sound different? Why is it that we have used cables to measure pico-amps of currents, nano-volts of voltages, up to Gigahertz's of bandwidth successfully, and yet when it comes to audio, we still have a "poor" understanding of how they work? Don't you think that whatever effects that make cables behave in a mysterious, poorly understood, manner at audio frequencies with large signals will manifest themselves in a very significant way (if not totally wreak havoc) in applications where pico-amps and nano-volts are measured, up to Gigahertz's in frequency? (snip) I would agree in principle, but not practice. Both in my home audio setup, and in my work with audio professionals (I'm not one) this is observable. Over the last couple dozen years I've seen the startled look of someone going "what'd you change?" way to often to discount the effect. Could they pass a DBT? I'm sure not (for lots of really good technical reaons others have addressed better than I could). Now if the changes caused a "startled look", they have to be repeatably observable changes, no? Why then do you assume a priori that the observers will not pass a DBT, which is an even more sensitive *audio* test? What does your training in psychology and logical problem solving (as required in computer science) tell you about what you just said? : Plus, I hope that you can pass a DBT on sorbet vs other cold desserts . Not sure I could tell one good sorbet from another though - which is why the analogy has some merit. Human perceptions are odd things that are in my experience poorly understood. -- It still is a bad analogy. Choice of a certain sorbet depends on taste, appearance, presentation, price, and other factors. There is no wrong choice, but only a personal choice. On the other hand, you were specifically talking about *audible differences* between cables, which need to be established via controlled testing since these differences are subtle, if present at all. Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Steven Sullivan ) wrote: : As covered above, these situations were plain when there was no : competing explanation. That's my point. This has not occurred : when there hasn't been a system change. Yes, these are not : competently designed, double-blind, tests, but the fact that : the result occurs spontaneously is interesting, especially since : there are no false positives (nor false negatives just to cover : all the bases). : Again, this 'protocol' is far too vague to rule *out* any sort : of non-audible 'cues' that might have lead to a report of audible : difference. Surely your studies menioned how insidious such : cues can be. Correct - I'm not stating this is *scientific* in any way. But it is, IMHO both interesting and enlightening. And, yes, I'm aware of the subtleties involved (Clever Han's trainer didn't know himself that he was doing it). What I've tried to do, though, is to suggest that two people independently, with no bias (other than perhaps my negative one) can observe the same phenomenon with *some* speaker cables and/or amps. My own research suggests that people's ability to understand what they hear is frought with errors. It seems to be much worse than sight, taste or smell (which many would argue is the best of our senses based on the size of the brain tissue devoted to it). At the same time I have seen independent folks come to the same conclusion. As I started out, and will now end since I have real work to do today, I find this fascinating even if not DBT'able. I've also worked with two people with perfect pitch (as stated by their mentors) and both were wrong Hearing is not believing IMHO. I take other people with me when I shop (usually for them - I'm not buying these days). If we both hear the same thing (irrespective of price - I tend to avoid stupidly priced cabling in particular) then something is happening. I/they have turned down cables/amps that we believed would sound better based on reviews/ store recommendations based on our preferences. The fact that those preferences usually match suggests some factor is being tickled. Based on my own statements perhaps it is smell ;- It remains the case, however, that this happens. Can I explain it? No. Can I pass on a test on it? No. Have I ever gone back to review before purchase and reversed a decision based on hearing it a second time? No (ok, you can argue a psychological factor there : I bring up the evidence of engineers as their response : is more likely to be "that's impossible," "it can't happen," etc. : etc. : Or , 'Seems unlikely. Have you tested it with controls in place?" Ok, so far none of my technologically competent friends have suggested that : I think you are, however, trying to merge two problems. Can someone : reliably say which is which? I think not. Can someone repeatedly : notice a change? Yes. Some changes are more desireable to normal : human beings. : If someone is noticing a change, then logically someone should : be able to say which is which. I'm not convinced of this, even though it appears logical. I don't go audition back and forth multiple times since I simply get to where I don't care after a short period of time. I find ABAB sufficient since these are not decisions of life-changing consequence. If at the second AB they sound the same then they probably are close enough that I will buy the more economical. And I will also grant you that *many* sound the same amongst cables. But so far amongst speaker cables I've been able to find ones that make a difference (again - I don't find this with interconnects where I simply buy reasonably well made and cheap ones). : If this were not so then everyone would be buying the same, : cheapest amps/cables. Clearly folks going to listening rooms and : actually listening find some components "better (whatever that is)." : It's astonishing htat you consider this evidence of *anything* as : regards audible difference, if you're actually familiar with the : idea of perceptual bias. : I posit that if all auditions were done blinded, then msot people : *would* end up buying cheap amps/cables. Sounds like a great study idea - can someone set this up? I'm also willing to bet that for cables you are absolutely right since the changes are often pretty subtle. For amps I'm less convinced. OTOH, I've had people listen to music on my higher resolution system and comment about things they've never heard before and then go purchase some incompetently designed piece of junk and say how great it sounds. Not proof of anything but that much of this performance stuff is unimportant to a large percentage of the population. : This, IMHO, : is the difficult part of getting ABX to work. I am aware of : the extremely quick nature of auditory fatigue (side note - we are : on day 2 of 3 days of fire alarm testing so I'm really aware of : such fatigue this week : And such fatigue can be expected to operate in sighted : as well as blinded comparisons. We are absolutely agreed (as I suggested above). : I'm also aware of how easily ears are fooled. One of my research : papers called into question the established practice of using : verbal echoing. It turned out that folks thought the other voice : was their own - even when it clearly wasn't (sometimes even a : different gender This is not a published work since some : instructors were made a bit nervous by this preliminary finding. : But do I think it rules out all possibilities of there being : actual differences - not at this point via observation only. : I suspect you meant *does not rule out* here. But again you : overstate the case. Surely your : education included the idea of likelihood. One never actually rules out 'all : possibility', one can only reduce the likelihood of such : possibilities to a negligable level. It is certainly true that a : set of DBT results for one person does not rule out the possibility : that other listeners might perform differently. SUbjectivists : often point this out, but tey fail to acknowledge at the same time : that it doesn't make *their* sighted perceptions *more likely* to : be accurate either. We are in agreement here : : The problems typically come down to one of an Occam's Razor issues. : : In theory all things should be the same that measure the same, : : but there are areas where this becomes fuzzy. Field effects, : : semi-electrically permeable insulators, etc. These explanations : : soon grow to the point where they collapse of their own weight : : (often rightly so). : : INdeed, as opposed to speculative audibility of 'field effects, : : semi-electrically permeable insulators' and the like, we have a : : large body of solid data about the fallibility of human perception. : : So, what would Occam's Razor suggest is the more likely : : explanation that *must* be discounted before one makes claims : : for such effects? : If those explanations really covered the issue, then they would : be repeatable (which you know they are not) and it would be possible : just to do better engineering to make things have more/less of : one or more these qualities and then have them always sound "better." : Indeed. Hasn't been done, AFAIK. Therefore the alternate explanation : for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference : -- perceptual bias -- still holds sway. Well, maybe. Because this is a human sense that is known to be pretty unreliable, there is an issue with falsifiability here that concerns me. It is easy to argue that since the majority of people don't see/hear it, it isn't there and they are making choices based on "pretty colors" or "someone else said so". But it is more difficult to prove that it is not so (the falsifiability issue). This is why I limit my testing knowing that I will increasingly see a convergence. But it is also why I take a "witness" to make sure we both heard the same thing. If we don't, then it is likely to in fact be bias. If we do? Difficult to say then eh? : Tighter tolerances are only *audibly* 'better' if the resultant : difference falls within the range of human hearing. (Though : such tolerances might contribute to build quality, and thus longer : functional life.) : As for engineers and what they say about cables, youv'e already gotten : input from a few here. Their take seems to me to be: cables : manfactured according to well-understood electrical constraints : will perform in sonically identical fashion. I presume this means : that there *are* some boundary numbers for resistance etc. : by which design parameters are constrained. Seems to me we have a problem at this point. I'm convinced that there may be enough variables that we aren't often put in the position of seeing constrained values. I suspect that the claim for "house sound" in cables/amps may simply be the case that a lot of those variables are constrained in the same direction. But the changes between manufacturers run large. At miniscule voltages (interconnects) I don't think many of them make much difference. At larger voltages more of them come into play IMHO. "Insulators" alone act very differently depending on the voltage/current applied. There are billions of possible formulas/type of materials/layout. Some of those will make (at times measureable) differences. If the argument becomes one of identical materials in identical layouts with identical insulation, then sure they are absolutely going to sound the same. I know, I know, I'm trivializing your argument With that said, remember that in networking we've only in the last few years come up with enough tests to show why some apparently identical twisted pair cables work better/worse than others. The changes between them are subtle, but they are sufficient to explain differences in performance. There is still work going on how best to terminate/polish fiber optic cables which are all engineered pretty much the exact same way. Fortunately we have measurements for those kinds of cabling, something we don't have as well refined for "hearing." : Will this be found in ABX? Haven't a clue since I don't know the : magnitude of changes possible once all the factors are simultaneously : interactively addressable. : I think you're needlessly complicating things here, by conflating : 'better' and 'different'. Engineers certainly do have *some* : parameters which lead to general perception of 'better' or 'worse' : sound -- reduction of known forms of audible distortion. But : my first concern is determinign whether claims of 'difference' are : even jsutified , since they are so extreemely common in audiophilia. This seems a baby/bath-water issue to me. Yes, there is *way* too much hype (you should see cat5 connecter companies slugging it out . That doesn't mean it is all false. Difficult to measure/verify - absolutely! Much of it utter nonsense - absolutely! : One more nut to throw on the pile btw Despite being much closer : to retirement than college, I'm interning on running live sound : mixing (compressors - ohmygod!). Do I like things to sound different : in live vs. recorded venues? Sad to say, yes. Would I like my recorded : music to sound more like live? Sometimes, but usually not. Do cables/amps : make differences there? You bet. : I bet you haven't done a proper test to determine whether it's *only* the : cables or *only* the amps that make the difference there. Proper tests we have not. But we rarly change amps (like once every 2 years) and change cables about every 3-5 months. I've not been there when both were changed at the same time. : People who listen to transistor radios : will show up in the sound booth and tell you so and they have no way : to know what you did (sort of an ultimate test in some ways since the : venue and artists are the same every week Do they agree on what's : different about the sound? Nope. Sometimes even the sound engineers : (not me - I'm just a grunt) disagree on the nature of the perceived changes. : As expected from psychological data. : But, the sound engineers do agree on what sounds "better." : Sometimes. Amongst the ones I know -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Lou Anschuetz wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton ) wrote: : On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:08:17 GMT, (Lou : Anschuetz) wrote: : The summary, though, is that IMHO there is a combination of measureable, : but poorly understood, real effects that are producing something that : makes the cables/amps (again, not interconnects where I've not been : able to observe this) "sound" different. : The true summary is that first you need to *demonstrate* that there : really is a difference. This has *never* been done. In a scientific setting, absolutely true. But a common enough phenomenon in cases where there is no need for a result that I continue to postulate that for some devices something else other than perceptual error (e.g. bias) is a sufficient explanation. And a again: your education in psychology should have equipped you to understand why that phenomenon is *common*, and why it may have NOTHING to do with the existence of an audible difference. -- -S. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Lou Anschuetz wrote:
Nousaine ) wrote: : What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is known : about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common : assertion. Ok, let me go into painful detail I'm sitting in a chair facing away from the door when I'm startled to find someone behind me (the entrance is behind me and hence invisible in the darkened room) who enters silently (making me jump out of the chair) and speaks words like - "wow, that bass sounds a lot better," or "I couldn't hear those cymbals before." It sounds like the person knew you were an 'audiophile' already. In other words, they already knew taht stuff might tend to change every now and then; maybe they've even been shown stuff by you. These are not "clever Hans" kinds of episodes. If they were, then obviously the value would be gone. But instead, they are someone hearing a difference and seeking out someone to tell. But not someone with *no* history with you, were they? I'm tyring to imagine a scenario where a total stranger would have come up to you and made a comment on your system like that. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:dAO%a.136898$cF.38036@rwcrnsc53...
Lou Anschuetz wrote: Nousaine ) wrote: : What is intersting is that the claim about "no prompting" ignores what is known : about social interaction. "My wife" heard it without prompting is a common : assertion. Ok, let me go into painful detail I'm sitting in a chair facing away from the door when I'm startled to find someone behind me (the entrance is behind me and hence invisible in the darkened room) who enters silently (making me jump out of the chair) and speaks words like - "wow, that bass sounds a lot better," or "I couldn't hear those cymbals before." It sounds like the person knew you were an 'audiophile' already. In other words, they already knew taht stuff might tend to change every now and then; maybe they've even been shown stuff by you. And how many times has he changed things and his wife HASN'T snuck up behind him and commented on it? Seems to me we have a severe case of selection bias here. bob |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I have ears on my arse! | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |