Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Midlant
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

"Richard D Pierce" said


What was said is that the state of knowledge in high-end audio
is often DECADES behind what is known in real engineering and
perceptual physics fields,

That is a troubling statement in two ways:
1. It implies that the top level of audio industry knowledge of several
decades ago was inadequate for the purpose of high end audio today.


Please distinguish between the "top level" and the "high-end." The latter is
still often inadequate for any-fi audio.

It implies abosultely no such thing and to say so is a
desparate attempt to make a silk purse out of a pile of pig
droppings. It states quite explicitly the opposite: that the
high end industry is, in fact, IGNORANT of quite a large number
of things that were worked on decades ago. A case in point: look
at the huge amount of handwringing that goes on over the subject
of jitter: a topic thoroughly studied and understood in the
1960's, and the high-end industry hasn't even begun to
understand the picture.


Yes, Illinois Bell began installing digital carrier systems in the Bell System
netwrk in the early 60s. At that time 'jitter' was an issue but mostly because
a cross-country long distance call may have involved 10,000 metal-to-metal
connections and any kind of 'disruption' may have been catastrophic on a given
call. Jitter had been figured out and dealt with by then in telecom.


I have to agree that even my casual reading of older audio information

contains mention of knowledge that is being rediscovered daily. I read a
story of THX and was amazed at howmuch that should have been common
knowledge was treated as breakthrough discoveries. It was more a mater of
finding someone who would pay to build a system that applied existing
knowledge than come up with the ideas.


THX was a commercial application of sound acoustical theory. That the
principles seem "obvious" afterward is a oft-heard response to many solid ideas
when delivered to the commerical level.

...snips...

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.


IF the "majority" are quacks then the industry isn't being "tarred" but simply
shown for what it is.

It seems to me that the "high-end" companies must have a "I won't tell 'em that
your bull**** is bull**** if YOU won't tell that MY bull**** is bull****."
non-disclosure pact.


Many of the pioners of audio were not trained in
audio but brought their knowledge to audio from other fields. Has this
stopped happening?


What has happend is that the field is now becoming more and more
populated by people who have less and less training in ANYTHING.


More and more - I'll take your word. But that's not 100%.


Sure but you don't want to accept the real engineers who have training either
.....Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Paul Barton, Peter Shuck, Marc Bonneville. Deon
Bearden, David Clark, Earl Geddes, Henry Blind, Dick Greiner, Dan Shanefield,
David Rich, James Gibeau, Tom Breithaupt, et al who say you're wrong.

By the way, Mr. Pierce, your business name is Professional Audio
Development. Are you associated with design of high end audio?


I am actively involved in the development of products, systems
and software used in professional audio applications, such as
multi-track workstations, audio and video editing applications,
loudspeaker measurement, design and evaluation and so on.


Lots of the work being done in your filed which is directly applicable to
high end audio. So why don't the discoveries from your field filter into
high end?


Because there's too much BS and not enough engineering and controlled listening
testing going on there.

My impression is that little in hi fi has been originally
developed for hi fi, but was derived and benefited from knowledge from the
more advanced fields filtering down, as it were, into audio. Is this info so
proprietary that is unavailable?


Holy cow; the most important intellectual technologies (other than physical
things like moving coil speakers, vacumn tubes, transistors and integrated
circuits) like negative feedback, stereo and digital were not only invented by
the telecommunications industry they were made publicly available to everyone.


Don't audiophiles in fields like yours develop DIY projects for themselves
and make them avalable, like the Orion speakers from Linkwitz? He makes his
living outside hi-fi, and as in days of yore puts some spare time to
personal audio projects. Is he alone?


Joe D'Appolito does this very thing with Madisound. But EVERYONE ....Theile &
Small included PUBLISHED their stuff so that even the high-end BS artists could
know what's what.

High-enders contributing ground breaking new developments in audio????? NEVER.
NOT ONCE. Give me a reference if you don't agree.

I have a question - Where can I find a list of those components

that
have been shown to be good enough that the human ear cannot detect
improvement? Or if not a list, a chart of the specifications?

Better yet, why don't YOU show us real evidence that the basic
thresholds of human hearing can regularily be surpassed by
high-end audio listeners?

Well, it's clever to turn the tables and ask me to be the expert. Eevn

if I
were capable (not so), having sampled the DBT on RAHE posts I would not
consider wading into that bar fight.


Why not?


It was no attempt to turn the table on you, rather to turn the
tables back to where they belong. The human auditory system has
been the subject of intense study for well over 150 years now,
and many self appointed high-end luminaries have either not
availed themselves of this work, or are deliberately ignoring
it. The claims made about the ear being such a fantastically
sensitive instrument are simply contrary to the vast amount of
known data and constitute extraordinary claims.

It's not that "we" claim to know everything, it's that there are
people in the high-end realm who, in fact, know VERY little.

I have more practical goals, one of which is to discover if there are
objective specifics that can be used to choose components. In my stereo
store customers were always looking for what I called "the magic

number" -
some specification that would assure them that a component with that

number
would be as good as they needed to get. I told them manufacturers specs

and
magazines reviews did not tell the whole story. That they had to listen.


Sure; they had to "Listen" under un-controlled conditions. It's EASY to get
people to 'hear' differences between 2 sonically identical presentations in
that circumstance.

I
never believed that was possible to use a magic number till I started
reading RAHE, where there seems to be a strong contingent of highly
knowledgeable members who believe that science has discovered, if not a
single magic number, maybe a set of numbers that are capable of

measurement
so we won't have to listen to choose electronic components.


I will tell you this in no uncertain terms: the search for
simple single-value "figures of merit" is an exercise in
futility. This is PRECISELY my complaint with "specs:" they are
manufacturers and reviewers attempts to come up with a single
number that they can badge equipment with that will convince us
that one thing is better, and something else is better still.

What you don't seem to understand, it seems, is that the
business of high-end audio shares one thing in common with other
businesses: it's a BUSINESS. It won't survive unless YOU buy
stuff (and, one reason it's not surviving is that people AREN'T
buying stuff). And the easier it is to get YOU to buy STUFF, the
better.

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.

The more we DO learn about these things, the farther we get from
what you want: a single number that says "10" is better that
"9".

I didn't go so afr as that. At least I asked for a set of magic numbers.
But they don't exist?


Actually they DDDOOOO exist. Flat response over the audible range, clipping
less than 1% of the time, level matched and no operating fault.

The problem is that none of these things EVER get controlled in casual
listening tests.

And people will 'take' an uncontrolled test as personal 'evidence.'
  #163   Report Post  
Lou Anschuetz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Lou Anschuetz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 |
| |

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

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

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?),


To each other.

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.


I didn't make this up; but it's what 30 years of bias controlled listening
tests (and Dick Greiner's research on clipping) have shown to be true.

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.


Clipping isn't the demon that some would make it out to be. When a device is
driven 10 or 20 dB into clipping it's quite detectable. But Floyd Toole told me
that when he was still at the NRC they put an amp/speaker in a separate
isolated room and drove the amplifier into clipping at controlled levels,
tapped the signal at the speaker terminals and fed it into another system in a
separate room so they could listen to the sound of amp "clipping" at rational
listening levels. This was still in the 70s.

His comment was that by and large moderate clipping was pretty benign
sonically. This confirms Greiner's later work.


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.


The idea is to verify them. There are so many ways for bias (conscious or
otherwise) to creep in and there are so many interfering variables that one
needs to validate himself now and again.

One common bias mechanism is the Urban Legend phenomenon. I might make an
observation that confirms what others also seem to believe, so even if wrong it
validates the Legend. And how do I kbow that I wasn't influenced beforehand by
the Legend if I don't validate myself with a bias controlled test OR with
research that has already validated it under controlled conditions.

For example I have purchased perhaps two dozen amplifiers over the past couple
decades. I still own 10 of them. All but the first 1 were bought based on the
findings of controlled listening tests that had already been conducted. Power
ratings very from 50 to 5000 watts.

Subsequently I have verified with my own personal ABX tests that they all sound
EXACTLY alike driving any any number of the several hundred speakers I've owned
and tested over the past 25 years unless driven into ultra hard clipping or
into protection.

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


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.



  #171   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

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

(Lou Anschuetz) wrote:

Ya.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.


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.

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.



: 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.



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.

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?
  #173   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Lou Anschuetz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #177   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."

These are not "clever Hans" kinds of episodes.


Why not? Your wife knows you; does she not?

If they were,
then obviously the value would be gone. But instead, they are
someone hearing a difference and seeking out someone to tell.


This is just another anecdote that hasn't been verified.

Do every amp/cable change make differences? Absolutely not. Do
some, absolutely.


So how do you come to this conclusion based on your pretty weak anecdotal
story?

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.


Please this is just a OSAF comment. There is NO evidence that nominally
competent wires of ANY kind make an audible difference.


: 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 happens in EVERY non-biased controlled listening session I've ever seen.

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.

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

"Wylie Williams"

"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 ".


hat's easy. Pick any ampliifer YOU are selling.


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.


Easy enough; just pick one that sounds "best" to you and then do a DBT with
another that sounds 'bad.'

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?


What's the Rule of Thumb "Trust Your Ears." Pick any two; verify they're level
matched and don't have significant response variations into the load (0.2 dB
over the audible range) and then complete the experiment.

Want help? Call me; I'm more than happy to help and/or conduct the experiment.

  #180   Report Post  
Lou Anschuetz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ears vs. Instruments

(Lou Anschuetz) wrote:

...mostly snipped.....


: 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?


You forget that humans are psychologically biased to perceive 'difference' when
given two identical sound presentations and will also interpret small changes
in level as chages in quality. So unless you monitor the latter volume control
settings may affect your judgement between trials. (Ever notice that a saleman
will always turn the gain control all the way down between equipment changes?
This is a great perception influence opportunity as well as a safety
practice.)

I don't know about your specific techniques but it is also common to see
listeners "negotiate" differences during a presentation so 'agreement' on what
they 'heard' is often just a social interaction that may not have any basis in
sound reproduced.
  #183   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"