[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 7:34�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
You are right. But then this begs the question, does one

need proof to merely have an opinion about their
subjective experiences?

Not if they don't wish to have credibility for their opinions.

It's a hobby. One only needs enough "credibility to believe one's self
in order to enjoy their subjective impressions. As for critics, well
they develop their following through the experience of their followers
finding agreement in the critic's impressions.


If a person wishes to have an opinion, then they are certainly free to have
that opinion. If people wish that opinion to be credible to others, and if
that opinon is such of a nature that can raise a controversy, then proof or
at least further evidence-gathering *may be appropriate.

I suppose so. Which makes me wonder why so much time is spent by some
hurting their own credibility by making plainly wrong arguments about
the laws of physics conflicting with subjective claims that cables
distort audio signals. If *those* folks want credibility, and it seems
they do, then why make arguments that can only hurt their credibility?


is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well
lies behind all of science. Some of us know how easily
we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against
that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being
fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?

I base my purchases on both technical and subjective evaluations. *Wherever
possible, I use bias controls in my subjective evaluations.

They are possible for every component in audio. But tell me, do you
use controls against a possible bias that components sound the same?
If so , how? Once you have established that components sound different
what do you do to prevent bias affects in your prefferences? That is
another form of "fooling yourself."


Case in point - I just bought a Microtrack digital recorder. I bought it
without auditioning it, based on its technical specs, the credibility of the
organization that published those specs, and several formal and informal
reviews of the product.

Ah, faith based purchase. I think this is a classic case of being at
risk of being fooled. Oh well.


BTW, I expect it to provide essentially perfect sound for 3-5 years. ;-)

Ah, then indeed you have been fooled. Perfect sound? No such thing in
audio recording and playback.


I haven't finished my formal and informal evaluation of the Microtrack, but
it seems to be suitable for the purpose that I purchased it for. I do have
return privileges with a 15% restocking fee, but based on making about 25
recordings with it, I don't think that will happen.

I am glad you are happy with your purchase. You are aware that this is
often the case with subjectivists? In the end the difference is?

Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in
levels, etc.), then

more like 0.1 dB.

0.01 dB is measurable.

Agreed. I've done it many times.

I thought Chung meant audibly differentiate --
the threshold of audibilty of level difference
is about ten times higher than 0.01 dB, was my point.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung
wrote:

For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency
responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution,
etc.

OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no
measurable effect within these tolerances?

An important point seems to have been missed.

The stated tolerances were provided to show that we can measure far smaller
differences than we can hear.

Audible tolerances are far greater.

Perhaps Scott needs to consult the literature on 'Just
Noticeable Difference'.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a
scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was
the scientists and engineers who have given us the
ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of
live musical performances into our living rooms.

Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it
was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out
the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised
"perfect sound forever", first in early transistor
amplifiers, and later in early CD players.

Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early SS amps had "perfect
sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely discussed. However,
their audible flaws were minor compared to their lack of reliablity.

The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound forever" was part of an
advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising pitches with adequate
technical statements of equipment performance deserves what they get.

Such pitches have been part of audio marketing forever. Back in
Edison's day it was reported that people could not tell the difference
between a singer and the recording, for example. New format
innovations thereafter -- incuding the LP --were often accompanied by
marketing hype to the effect that 'realism' had at last been achieved.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 7:37?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 15, 8:35?pm, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
On 15 Mar 2007 22:34:13 GMT, wrote:

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of
people give their ideas with little experience to back
up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more
accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to
listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow
and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI
Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to
hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive
table. There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely
different. The ear is the final arbeitor

And yet when the eye is blocked the ear becomes unable
to tell the difference. Strange, that.

Really? You have done or know of DBTs or even SBTs
between a Rega P25 and a VPI Scoutmaster where no
differences were detected? Or are you just making
assumptions here?

I would be happy to conduct a full objective and subjective comparison of
these two turntables, were they available to me for evaluation.

That's nice. It doesn't answer my question though.


In fact there are few if any proper comparisons of turntables, tone arms,
and cartrdiges by the high end audio press.

Yeah, it is really really hard to do though.

I think that Stereophile did one
a few years back, but that was apparently a one-time event. I also don't
know how thorough that comparison was, but I'm quite sure given the
continuing angst at Stereophile over proper subjective comparison techniques
that none were done

What? That the comparisons were done sighted? Think of the work that
would go into blind comparisons. I know, I've done them. But with that
said, it was worth it. Frankly I was just lucky I stumbled into a high
end shop in Hong Kong that had a Forsell air reference, Rockport
Sirius III and a Clear Audio Master reference table all set up with
the same cartridge. I have to say, the results were in direct conflict
with my biases. Interetingly enough, in follow up comparisons done
sighted, my preferences did not change. Go figure.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

snip, irrelevant to below


There is no "simple" way to really A-B turntables. It is not like passing
a
signal through two electronic items, matching levels, and then simply
switching back and forth.

No, but it can and has been done. Here is how you do it.

* You use two nominally identical cartridges
* You use a preamp with two identical phono inputs, or two identical preamps
with one feeding the other's tape monitor input.
* You use two identical pressings
* You synchronize the two pieces and have somebody switch for you (single
blind).
* You do this several times alternating records and preamps.
* Then you remount the cartridges in the opposite turntable/arm combo and
reoptimize.
* Then you repeat all of the above.

Simple? No, you are correct about that. But with enough time and
expertise, it can be done. I did this between my Linn/Syrinx/AC-2 combo and
my Dual 701/AC-2 combo, using two AC-2's, two copies of Bruno Walter's
Beethoven 4th/5th Symphony, two Audionic BT-2 improved preamps. On this
basis I identified the midrange of the Dual identical to the Linn/Syrinx,
the bass superior, and the treble inferior. After doing the evaluation, I
decided I could live with the slightly less pristine treble, sold the
Linn/Syrinx, and freed up about $1000 to reinvest elsewhere in my system.

It's not simple. But if it is important enough (and for me to consider
giving up the Linn/Syrinx, it was) it is doable.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 9:36?am, Chung wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.
Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained?
How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements?
The OP said so...Maybe you should ask the OP.

Oh you are taking his word for it? then there is nothing more to
discuss. cables sound different.

OK, it seems that you don't really understand my point at all.

Um no, I understnad it despite all your claims about what I understand
and don't understand. I just don't think it has any validity.

I raised
the question "Ever wonder why those feelings cannot be backed up by
meaasurements?"

Then you missed my point. That your question was based on an unfounded
assumption that those feelings can't be backed up by measurements.

since the OP made that statement,

The OP may have been taking your straw man arguements at face value.
IOW you may have successfully lead him into believing the laws of
physics really do chime in and support the belief that cables have no
sound of their own.

to bring the point up
that perhaps those feelings were NOT actually based on the actual
performance differences in cables. You somehow interpreted that as me
taking his word for it,

No. Indeed you missed that point completely.

that I am agreeing with him that cables sound
different, and hence there is nothing more to discuss.

Perhaps the discussion will actually move forward when some people
drop the infernces that the laws of physics and measurements that
exceed the sensitivty of human hearing are not finding any distortions
of an audio signal in cables.


Given your consistent lack of understanding on what points are being
made, and your inability to follow logic, there is really nothing more
to discuss.

ah pure ad hominem. The last resort when one has no real legitimate
argument. I think you are just upset that I called you on your straw
man.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Most of us wouldn't....but we might say that there is not
consensus on *what* should be measured....no verified
science tying the measured phenomenon with subjective
aural ratings when it comes to reproducing music.

Actually there is a consensus, its just not a perfect consensus. One
problem
is that there is an ongoing controversy, largely fueled by ignorance of
audio by consumers.

Let's see....their is engineering consensus that is spoiled by those awful
thugs called "consumers", is that it Arny? Good...that's what kept us from
having CDP-101's forever.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"UC" wrote in message

On Mar 3, 11:32 am, DougA wrote:
After spending months in our selection of a two channel
system, we are ready for the next step and want to
upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power cords and
speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs,
reviews or make personal recommendations?

douga

Monster Cable brand is widely available, not excessively
expensive, and good-sounding.

Actually, just about everything Monster Cable sells is wildly overpriced
unless bought at clearance sales. MCM Electronics often sells Monster
Cable
products that are being cleared out.

Where is the IMO in front of that "wildly overpriced", Arnold? Value is a
subjective factor.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

wrote in message
...

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of
people give their ideas with little experience to back
up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more
accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to
listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow
and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI
Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to
hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive
table.

There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and
flutter which
I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for
an AR-XA
at the age of 12.

It's quite possible for an AR-XA to have audible wow and flutter. I'm
surprised you never heard it.

Where I went to school, Arny, "quite possible" does not equate to "quite
probable".

[Moderator's note: OK folks, I'm going to have start insisting on some
audio content in every post from now on. -- deb ]

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a
scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was
the scientists and engineers who have given us the
ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of
live musical performances into our living rooms.

Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it
was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out
the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised
"perfect sound forever", first in early transistor
amplifiers, and later in early CD players.

Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early SS amps had
"perfect
sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely discussed. However,
their audible flaws were minor compared to their lack of reliablity.

Reliability may have been the main issue to engineers. To audiophiles, it
was vile sound.


The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound forever" was part of
an
advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising pitches with adequate
technical statements of equipment performance deserves what they get.

Except of course for the engineers (Sony and otherwise) who were all over
the audio magazines, arguing that CD's indeed did offer "perfect sound'.
You continue to take very much that same position today, arguing that they
are the ultimate in transparency (what else is "perfect sound").


However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that appears to be
well-maintained. This was one of the two original CD players. I defy
anybody
to detect its insertion into an audio system playing back typical
recordings.

But of course none of us have access to that machine, and you don't have
access to our systems. So that is a bit of a piece of fluff, unless you
want to offer to send it (or bring it) to some of us for audition.

And it was
audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to
describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew
where to focus their attention.

Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a descriptive language that
was first developed by recording engineers and sound system installation
engineers.

In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I have ever heard this
claim. Excuse me for being suspicious.


It takes both good
engineering knowledge and good listening skills to create
superior audio equipment, even if the engineering alone
is sufficient in some other fields.

As a rule audio journalists do not use proper descriptive teminology. They
tend to write poetry, not usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES
standard, AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms.

Let's see. Stereophile was formed in, when, 1965? And TAS was formed in
1974. Let's see when the AES Standards Committee started to work. The
following is extracted from the AES web page on standards:

"AES Standards - a short history
"Standards activity in the AES started shortly after the Society was
founded. In the early days, the AES Standards Committee (AESSC) mainly acted
as a reporting agency to the membership through the Journal on the
activities of IEC TC 29 and audio-related activities of other standards
organisations such as EIA, SMPTE, IEEE, and the Acoustical Society of
America (ASA). Even though the AES at this time was not producing documents,
many AES members contributed to standards through these other organisations.
"In 1977, stimulated by the growing need for standards in digital audio, the
AES Digital Audio Standards Committee was formed. It was responsible for
creating some fundamental standards such as the AES3 digital audio
interface - sometimes known as the AES/EBU interface - and standards for
sampling frequency and synchronisation which are still in use today.

"In 1980, a full-time secretary (Dan Queen) was appointed. At about the same
time, the AES became the secretariat of ANSI S4 (which continued until
2001). In 1984, the procedures of the AESSC were revised to improve the
openness and consensus of our due process, modelled on IEC directives and
drawing from the examples of the ASA, IEEE and SMPTE"

So the earlierst the AES standards could exist was 1977, more than ten years
after J. Gordon Holt started defining terms, and three years after Harry
Pearson turned them into a glossary. And since the above suggests that the
AES/EBU interface was the group's initial focus, and since they have only
developed 43 standards (of which #22 falls somewhere in the middle), it is
almost impossible to accept that the AES definitions preceded the audiophile
editors work.

I guess my suspicions are justified.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 7:36�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung
wrote:
For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency
responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution,
etc.
OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no
measurable effect within these tolerances?

An important point seems to have been missed.

Oh I agree. That was my point.


The stated tolerances were provided to show that we can measure far smaller
differences than we can hear.

And what is the point of that? The problem is when there is all this
hand waving about the laws of physics and more hand waving about our
ability to meausre better than we can hear it infers that there is no
distortion. That the measurements come up with nothing, that the laws
of physics dictae that there is nothing t measure. It is a deceptive
means of posturing about cable sound.


Audible tolerances are far greater.

No, I'm just calling you guys on what I see as a straw
man argument by inference.

You mean like the straw man that I dealt with above?

No, I mean a genuine straw man.


The laws of physics have been
envoked and our superior ability measure beyond the human
thresholds of hearing have been envoked.

So far so good. However it is apparent that the point that was obviously
being made was misunderstood.

No, it was deceptive. why on earth would one who is arguing that
cables do not make an *audible* differerence mention "the laws of
physics" and the measurments that are more sensitive than the human
thresholds of hearing and conveniently fail to mention that in fact
those laws of phsyics and measurements support the fact that cables do
indeed distort audio signals? The attemto at misdirection seems pretty
obvious to me.


The thing that
wasn't mentioned is that those very laws of physics
actual dictate that not only do cables distort an audio
signal they *must* do so by those very laws envoked.

Missing the point that just because there is measurable distortion, does not
mean that said distortion is audible.

No the point is that envoking the laws of phsyics is an attempt at
misreprensenting the facts. The question, as I have stated before is
whether or not those distortions are audible. That is not a matter of
phsyics but a matter of human hearing acuity.


It also isn't mentioned that those very sensitive measuring
devices actually do measure differences between cables as
dictated by those laws of physics.

If by distortion, you are using the common meaning, which is actually
nonlinear distortion, then neither the laws of physics nor actual
measurements suggest that cables have audible nonlinear distortion.

I use the word as it is meant ot be used. ": falsified reproduction of
an audio or video signal caused by change in the wave form of the
original signal " The fact is every audio cable distorts the signal
that goes into it.


That is the real
irony. Lets talk about physics and sensitive measurments
let's * just casually ignore what they really say.

No, there is an implication of relevance which seems to being swept under
some figurative carpet.

Really. I suggest you review the claims on this very thread about "the
laws of physics" and the measurements that exceed the thresholds of
human hearing. Not one mention of the fact that the laws of physics
dictate that there is distortion or that the measurments support that
fact. Hmmmm


There may be differences in cable
length, inductance, capacitance, etc.
Gotta love that "etc." It could mean a lot of things.

I provided a complete list in another post.

You say it's complete. I am skeptical of your claim.


What is important is the voltage
that is delivered to the load, be it speaker terminals
or inputs of the
power amp. If two cables deliver the same voltage within
tolerances that
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in
levels, etc.), then
the two cables must sound the same to us.
But alas they don't deliever the same exact signal.
Certainly not within a 0.01 dB tolerance.

There is no need to do so. The 0.01 dB tolerance is irrelevant to
audibility.

I'll tell you what is quite irrelevent to audibility. Invoking the
laws of physics or the fact that we can make measurments that exceed
the human thresholds of hearing. That is most irrelevant to the
audibility of cable sound.


Unless you claim to have
hearing acuity finer than those differences.
No my claim is quite simple. The posturing about the
"laws of physics" and the ability to measure beyond the
thresholds of human hearing are a meaningless burning
straw man because the "laws of physics" dictate that
cables will distort an audio signal and the measurements
that extend beyond the threshold of human hearing bear
that fact out.

However, the fact that the *only* measured issues are far less than human
audibility *is* relevant.

That would be relevant. Now if only anyone can provide the relevant
data to support *that* assertion. Then we would have something worth
talking about.


Once those facts are disclosed all the
hand waving about those measurements and the laws of
physics are reduced to a non-argument at best. THE ISSUE.
The ONLY issue is whether or not the real world
distortions (predicted by "the laws of physics" and
supported by the imperical measurements) are within or
beyond the threshold of human hearing. That is my point.

This point is irrelevant to the immediate discussion at hand, which was a
discussion as to whether we can measure more sensitively than we can hear.

Wrong, wrong, worng. The immediate discussion at hand was about the
audibility of cable sound. I was calling out those that made the false
argument that the belief that cables have sound was in violation of
the laws of physics and the inference that measurments that exceed the
thresholds of human hearing have failed to detect differences in
cables.


It was claimed that we can hear more sensitively than we can measure, when
the facts support the exact opposite conclusion.

No, the OP claimed that he heard differences in cables despite what is
being claimed about the laws of physics. You guys made inferences
about the measurments and then turned his words around. This is what
he said."Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables
you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and
passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured."
Perhaps if the folks who did all the hand waving about the laws of
physics and measurments had mentioned the results of such measurements
or the true implications of the laws of phsyics the OP wouldn't have
been mislead to believe that hearing differences in cables was in
conflict with those sensitive mesurments and the laws of physics.


Nothing more nothing less. If there are studies that have
measured all parameters of cable distortion and there is
sufficient listening tests for the thresholds of human
hearing for all those distortions then we have something
to talk about. But no one is talking about that. Why not?

Because someone raised a different issue.

Only becuase a few others made straw man arguments that the OP seemed
to accpet at face value. His only fault was in believing the inference
that the laws of phsyics and the measurments were in conflict with his
experience.


A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand
how a cable works in audio, what chance do we have of
designing complex systems, like cellular communication
systems for instance?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because
they can be made quite simply does not mean they are
all free from distortion.
You don't understand the point.
No I do understand the point.

No, another point was brought in when discussion of the first point was
incomplete. I see no response *to Chung's post from "DougA".

What on earth does that have to do with me understanding the point?


This whole discussion of audibility is currently out of order.

Yeah due in large part to the faulty inferences that this is about the
laws of physics rather than human thresholds of hearing.

Scott

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

wrote in message
...

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of
people give their ideas with little experience to back
up their points. Comments like "surely we can test more
accurately than we can hear is very false. One has to
listen only to a very good turntable with inaudible wow
and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to a VPI
Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and flutter to
hear the absolutely superiority of the more expensive
table.

There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and
flutter which
I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer for
an AR-XA
at the age of 12.

It's quite possible for an AR-XA to have audible wow and flutter. I'm
surprised you never heard it.

What level would you consider audible in music?

ScottW

[René]

On 17 Mar 2007 19:50:04 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:

In short - re-seating the existing cables and interlinks may make a
remarkable difference.

Only if they were originally RUBBISH !

The reticence of the hi-fi industry to adopt decent reliable connectors like XLRs
as used in pro-audio is very telling.

I use mediocre mass production interlinks on my older, not high end
equipment. So you may very well have a point.

Yet I can live with e.g. a yearly re-seating of some of my substandard
cables.

XLR is much better indeed. AFAIK mostly used for symmetrical signals
in heavy-use "industrial" environments. (Stage, studio?)

No doubt some high end equipment is also fitted with XLR, and that
would probably be a good solution.

But not in the price bracket I am listening my music in.
Cheapskates like my that still use RCA interlink and cable clamp
connectors on the amp for the loudspeakers may benefit from incidental
re-seating. Speacially those that use soldered ends on the speaker
wiring inside pressure clamps..:-)

Now PC style 3.5 mm plugs - thats really a problem..

--
- René

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in
levels, etc.), then

more like 0.1 dB.

0.01 dB is measurable.

Agreed. I've done it many times.

It needs around 0.3 dB to be audible by a very highly
trained ear..

Agreed. I've done it many times. However, this takes careful close
comparisons that audiophiles rarely ever do.

The audibility of a change is highly dependent on the range of frequencies
that the change effects. 5 dB at 20 KHz is moot, 5 dB over the 20-20 KHz
range is can be pretty signficant. But, if someone says that a sound is too
soft or too loud, you may have to change the levels by 5 dB 20-20 KHz for
them to think you've made a significant change.

I find channel balance and sound stage shifts to be a good example of
small changes in level resulting in audible change.
My new cart was less than a .5 db off in measured channel imbalance
(spec'd at 1db) yet the soundstage shift was obvious and annoying.
No, I didn't DBT it. I did measure it, compensate,
and then enjoyed the results.

ScottW

[Chung]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung
wrote:

For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency
responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution,
etc.

OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no
measurable effect within these tolerances?

An important point seems to have been missed.

The stated tolerances were provided to show that we can measure far smaller
differences than we can hear.

Audible tolerances are far greater.

Perhaps Scott needs to consult the literature on 'Just
Noticeable Difference'.


What Scott fails consistently to understand, or intentionally chooses to
not understand, is that cable differences do not necessarily imply
audible differences. No one ever said that there are no measureable
differences between two different cables. What we are saying is that
those measureable differences most likely do not lead to audible
differences, since we are only concerned with the waveforms reaching the
speaker terminals (and hence our ears).

For instance: Take two cables, one 1 meter long and the other 2 meter
long. There are obvious measureable differences between the cables, and
in fact, the parameters in the cable models are different by a factor of
2. But the waveforms reaching the end of the cables are similar enough
that there will not be audible differences. I hope that our experiences
also convince ourselves of that.

Of course, if one only wants to argue for argument's sake, there is
always some way to misinterpret the obvious points to keep the arguments
going...

[Chung]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in
levels, etc.), then

more like 0.1 dB.

0.01 dB is measurable.

Agreed. I've done it many times.

I thought Chung meant audibly differentiate --
the threshold of audibilty of level difference
is about ten times higher than 0.01 dB, was my point.

I meant audibly differentiate, and you are both right. I picked 0.01 dB
to show how much resolution measurements today are capable of, and that
number clearly is much finer than the ear can detect.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 10:23?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message

On Mar 15, 8:37?pm, Chung wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung
wrote:
For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency
responses to gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution,
etc.
OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no
measurable effect within these tolerances?
An important point seems to have been missed.
The stated tolerances were provided to show that we can measure far smaller
differences than we can hear.
Audible tolerances are far greater.

Perhaps Scott needs to consult the literature on 'Just
Noticeable Difference'.

Perhaps Chung does. he came up with that number.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 8:38?am, Chung wrote:
wrote:

In fact, if there is any audible difference, it has to show up in
measurements:

Well that really does depend on the fact that the right things are
being accurately measured. Until we know that has happened then no
fact either way has been established.

record the two outputs digitally and compare waveforms. If
differences are greater than thresholds of audibility, then you or
someone will hear differences.

Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i think needs to
be accurately reported. Just what are the thresholds of audibility
when it comes to every known form of distortion? How about someone
actually reporting the scientific literature on this. Cite the source
and *quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That would be
helpful. I'd love to see something more than inference and gossip.


BTW, how do you know that the wow and flutter performance of those two
are identical, or indistinguishable, if you don't use measurements? You
take the manufacturers' specs for granted?

How do you know the manufatcurer's specs are not based on accurate
measurements?


There are amps, preamps, and everything
electronic the like measurements that sound completely different.

Then you are not making the right measurements, or understanding the
measurements.

Which begs the question wjhat are the right meausrments and how should
they be interpreted?


The
ear is the final arbeitor

Whatever that means...

IMO it means in the end what matters is what can and cannot be heard
by the human ear.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 1:57?pm, Chung wrote:

What Scott fails consistently to understand, or intentionally chooses to
not understand, is that cable differences do not necessarily imply
audible differences.

Wow this is quite an accusation. Let me quote myself form this thread.
"THE
ISSUE. The ONLY issue is whether or not the real world distortions
(predicted by "the laws of physics" and supported by the imperical
measurements) are within or beyond the threshold of human hearing.
That is my point. " So I have to ask how can Chung or anyone else read
that and then conclude that I don't understand or deliberately choose
not to understand that "cable differences do not necessarily imply
audible differences?" I can only conclude that it is Chung that is
either failing to understand or intentionally choosing not to
understand what I have posted. Kind of ironic that Chung would accuse
me of this.

No one ever said that there are no measureable
differences between two different cables.

Hmm Are you reading what is actually being said in this thread? Better
yet maybe you can explain what you meant by the following.
Chung: "Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by
measurements and
therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among
the
simplest of electronic gear"
I would say that you are quite clearly infering that we are not
measuring differences between cables. Otherwise what is the point of
saying what you said there? How does that support the assertion that
cables don't have a sound of their own? It is either infering that the
cables don't measure differently or it is just an illogical argument.
take your pick.

What we are saying is that
those measureable differences most likely do not lead to audible
differences, since we are only concerned with the waveforms reaching the
speaker terminals (and hence our ears).

That isn't what you said before. Read your own words that I quoted
from this thread. It is what you are saying after I pointed out this
little problem that indeed cables do measure differently and that the
laws of physics actually tells us that cables have to distort an audio
signal. Now lets try to avoid any more eroneous claims that I fail to
understand that such distortions are not proof of an audible
difference. I am getting tired of correcting your repeated
misrepresentations on this matter.


For instance: Take two cables, one 1 meter long and the other 2 meter
long. There are obvious measureable differences between the cables, and
in fact, the parameters in the cable models are different by a factor of
2. But the waveforms reaching the end of the cables are similar enough
that there will not be audible differences.

Perhaps they are but no one has presented any meaningful information
on all the measurable distortions that can be found in cables and how
they relate to the research on audibility of those distortions. Please
understand that at this point "meaningful information" really needs to
come in the form of scientific studies. Personal opinions are just
that. Opinions

I hope that our experiences
also convince ourselves of that.

Why do you hope that?


Of course, if one only wants to argue for argument's sake, there is
always some way to misinterpret the obvious points to keep the arguments
going

I agree and I hope you now will have a clearer understanding of my
points and no longer misrepresent what I do and do not understand.

Scott

[Eeyore]

"René" wrote:

On 17 Mar 2007 19:50:04 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:

In short - re-seating the existing cables and interlinks may make a
remarkable difference.

Only if they were originally RUBBISH !

The reticence of the hi-fi industry to adopt decent reliable connectors like XLRs
as used in pro-audio is very telling.

I use mediocre mass production interlinks on my older, not high end
equipment. So you may very well have a point.

Yet I can live with e.g. a yearly re-seating of some of my substandard
cables.

XLR is much better indeed. AFAIK mostly used for symmetrical signals
in heavy-use "industrial" environments. (Stage, studio?)

Very much so. Also in radio and TV, film production etc.

No doubt some high end equipment is also fitted with XLR, and that
would probably be a good solution.

But not in the price bracket I am listening my music in.
Cheapskates like my that still use RCA interlink and cable clamp
connectors on the amp for the loudspeakers may benefit from incidental
re-seating. Speacially those that use soldered ends on the speaker
wiring inside pressure clamps..:-)

I've bought these on ebay. They're not expensive at all and look quite well made.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Twin-Phono-2-R...c mdZViewItem

Now PC style 3.5 mm plugs - thats really a problem..

Those 'mini-jacks' are an utter disgrace !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote
in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:
we cannot differentiate (like 0.01dB difference in
levels, etc.), then

more like 0.1 dB.

0.01 dB is measurable.

Agreed. I've done it many times.

It needs around 0.3 dB to be audible by a very highly
trained ear..

Agreed. I've done it many times. However, this takes
careful close comparisons that audiophiles rarely ever
do.

The audibility of a change is highly dependent on the
range of frequencies that the change effects. 5 dB at
20 KHz is moot, 5 dB over the 20-20 KHz range is can be
pretty signficant. But, if someone says that a sound is
too soft or too loud, you may have to change the levels
by 5 dB 20-20 KHz for them to think you've made a
significant change.

I find channel balance and sound stage shifts to be a
good example of small changes in level resulting in
audible change.

This can clearly happen. One of the natural enemies of sensitive perception
of small differences can be the natural variation in the audio signal.

Channel balance is a little different because it has broadband effects.

My new cart was less than a .5 db off in measured channel
imbalance (spec'd at 1db) yet the soundstage shift was
obvious and annoying.

More likely to be detected with headphones.

No, I didn't DBT it.

I provide sound samples that people can use to DBT it at:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm

I did measure it, compensate, and then enjoyed the results.

Tweaks like these can be helpful for critical listeners. Often people
perceive big differences between components, when the most signficiant
difference is just a readily-corrected channel balance. Unless your level
control has carefully-matched elements, there will be signficant and audible
shifts in channel balance as you change levels.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a
scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was
the scientists and engineers who have given us the
ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of
live musical performances into our living rooms.

Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it
was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out
the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised
"perfect sound forever", first in early transistor
amplifiers, and later in early CD players.

Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early
SS amps had "perfect
sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely
discussed. However, their audible flaws were minor
compared to their lack of reliablity.

Reliability may have been the main issue to engineers.
To audiophiles, it was vile sound.

The vile sound often involved amplifiers that had become defective in use
due to their relatively fragility.

The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound
forever" was part of an
advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising
pitches with adequate technical statements of equipment
performance deserves what they get.

Except of course for the engineers (Sony and otherwise)
who were all over the audio magazines, arguing that CD's
indeed did offer "perfect sound'.

The CD format has always and continues to prvoide sonically transparent
recording and reproduction of music.

You continue to take
very much that same position today, arguing that they are
the ultimate in transparency (what else is "perfect
sound").

It is well known that the ear is oblivious to many changes that are easy to
measure. Therefore a format that is far from perfect can be sonically
transparent.

However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that
appears to be well-maintained. This was one of the two
original CD players. I defy anybody
to detect its insertion into an audio system playing
back typical recordings.

But of course none of us have access to that machine, and
you don't have access to our systems.

It would be a simple matter to provide high sample rate, high bit depth
recordings before and after passage through the CDP 101 any reasonble number
of times.

So that is a bit
of a piece of fluff, unless you want to offer to send it
(or bring it) to some of us for audition.

Depends on whether or not the listener can cathect with a highly accurate
recording of the equipment's output as being representative of its
performance.

And it was
audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to
describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew
where to focus their attention.

Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a
descriptive language that was first developed by
recording engineers and sound system installation
engineers.

In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I
have ever heard this claim.

It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers and sound system
installation engineers couldn't articulate their perceptions using a
descriptive language to describe what they heard, until some reviewers made
it up.

For one thing, actual development and limited use of equipment, historically
proceeded offering up equipment for review in some publication. The egg
comes before the review of the egg.

It takes both good
engineering knowledge and good listening skills to
create superior audio equipment, even if the
engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields.

As a rule audio journalists do not use proper
descriptive teminology. They tend to write poetry, not
usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES standard,
AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms.

Let's see. Stereophile was formed in, when, 1965? And
TAS was formed in 1974. Let's see when the AES Standards
Committee started to work. The following is extracted
from the AES web page on standards:

"AES Standards - a short history
"Standards activity in the AES started shortly after the
Society was founded. In the early days, the AES Standards
Committee (AESSC) mainly acted as a reporting agency to
the membership through the Journal on the activities of
IEC TC 29 and audio-related activities of other standards
organisations such as EIA, SMPTE, IEEE, and the
Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Even though the AES
at this time was not producing documents, many AES
members contributed to standards through these other
organisations. "In 1977, stimulated by the growing need
for standards in digital audio, the AES Digital Audio
Standards Committee was formed. It was responsible for
creating some fundamental standards such as the AES3
digital audio interface - sometimes known as the AES/EBU
interface - and standards for sampling frequency and
synchronisation which are still in use today.

"In 1980, a full-time secretary (Dan Queen) was
appointed. At about the same time, the AES became the
secretariat of ANSI S4 (which continued until 2001). In
1984, the procedures of the AESSC were revised to improve
the openness and consensus of our due process, modelled
on IEC directives and drawing from the examples of the
ASA, IEEE and SMPTE"

So the earlierst the AES standards could exist was 1977,
more than ten years after J. Gordon Holt started defining
terms, and three years after Harry Pearson turned them
into a glossary. And since the above suggests that the
AES/EBU interface was the group's initial focus, and
since they have only developed 43 standards (of which #22
falls somewhere in the middle), it is almost impossible
to accept that the AES definitions preceded the
audiophile editors work.

Formal use generally follows informal use, sometimes by many years.

I know for sure that much of the terminology in AES22 was used by audio
technical persons for many years before the AES started work on formalizing
it.

As far back as he goes, Gordon Holt didn't invent audio reviewing. For
example, there were audio reviews in High Fidelity Magazine, which was
founded in 1951. Holt didn't sell his first article to them until about 2
years later.

I've talked to people who were installing audio systems in the 1930s, and
they had a descriptive language to describe what they heard back then. I
first encountered it when I started reading audio articles in 1953. I heard
it when I started working professionally in audio, in 1962. It was already
well-developed way back then.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 18, 7:34?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
You are right. But then this begs the question, does
one

need proof to merely have an opinion about their
subjective experiences?

Not if they don't wish to have credibility for their
opinions.

It's a hobby.

So what?

So is golf a hobby for most. Isn't credibility an issue there?

One only needs enough "credibility to
believe one's self in order to enjoy their subjective
impressions.

True only until they are published for consideration by others.

As for critics, well they develop their
following through the experience of their followers
finding agreement in the critic's impressions.

There's only one logical explanations for the rediculous rantings of some
critics - any port in a storm.

If a person wishes to have an opinion, then they are
certainly free to have that opinion. If people wish that
opinion to be credible to others, and if that opinon is
such of a nature that can raise a controversy, then
proof or at least further evidence-gathering may be
appropriate.

I suppose so.

So far so good.

Which makes me wonder why so much time is
spent by some hurting their own credibility by making
plainly wrong arguments about the laws of physics
conflicting with subjective claims that cables distort
audio signals.

Feel free to start to defend yourself at your earliest convenience. ;-)

If *those* folks want credibility, and it
seems they do, then why make arguments that can only hurt
their credibility?

Do tell.

is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how
easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.

Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being
fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?

I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in
my subjective evaluations.

They are possible for every component in audio. But tell
me, do you use controls against a possible bias that
components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere near as strong as the
bias to hear differences when there can't be any, and you'll have a logical
leg to stand on.

Once you have
established that components sound different what do you
do to prevent bias affects in your prefferences?

I use sonic accuracy as my absolute standard.

Case in point - I just bought a Microtrack digital
recorder. I bought it without auditioning it, based on
its technical specs, the credibility of the organization
that published those specs, and several formal and
informal reviews of the product.

Ah, faith based purchase. I think this is a classic case
of being at risk of being fooled. Oh well.

Where's the faith? Details please.

BTW, I expect it to provide essentially perfect sound
for 3-5 years. ;-)

Ah, then indeed you have been fooled. Perfect sound? No
such thing in audio recording and playback.

I didn't say perfect sound. I said essentially perfect sound. Do you see
any difference between the two phrases?

I haven't finished my formal and informal evaluation of
the Microtrack, but it seems to be suitable for the
purpose that I purchased it for. I do have return
privileges with a 15% restocking fee, but based on
making about 25 recordings with it, I don't think that
will happen.

I am glad you are happy with your purchase. You are aware
that this is often the case with subjectivists?

I do, as I am a subjectivist.

In the end the difference is?

Perhaps you could provide a real world counter example involving a similar
product where different means of evaluations were used, to help make that
comment relevant.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I would be happy to conduct a full objective and
subjective comparison of these two turntables, were they
available to me for evaluation.

In fact there are few if any proper comparisons of
turntables, tone arms, and cartrdiges by the high end
audio press. I think that Stereophile did one a few
years back, but that was apparently a one-time event. I
also don't know how thorough that comparison was, but
I'm quite sure given the continuing angst at Stereophile
over proper subjective comparison techniques that none
were done.

There is no "simple" way to really A-B turntables. It is
not like passing a signal through two electronic items,
matching levels, and then simply switching back and forth.

It's harder, but it can be done, and I've personally done it.

Usually, one just spends big bucks on something new, and
then pronounces that the newer item "blows away" the old.

There you go! ;-)

In the old days (if I remember correctly), Linn
demonstrated their "AR-like" suspended deck with a
competing Japanese DD. At that time they used the Keith
Monks tonearm which allowed swapping the entire arm
tube/cartridge assembly (the KM arm tube was sunk in a
vat of mercury and could easily be lifted off). But even
this was far from a controlled test.

Agreed.

Few "high end" arms have detachable shells, these days.
The ones that do are very expensive. I suppose it would
be possible to set up two different turntables with, say,
two identical Ikeda (think FR) arms, swap headshells and
use the same record. But then the test would not have
the advantage of quick comparison.

The PCABX method can apply given that digital recording is far more accurate
and reliable than the UUT.

The old Audio Magazine tests measured for wow and
flutter, speed stability, and rumble. Is anyone doing
that now?

One sees casual tests based on digital recordings of LPs, particularly on
uk.rec.audio.

Today, a high end turntable is more a work of art. It is
difficult to not believe that a chrome and lucite deck
selling for 5 to 10 large is not somehow better than,
say, a Technics SL-1200 that looks pretty industrial by
comparison.

That would appear to be some of the manufacturer's intent. I believe the
relevant phrase is "perceived value".

Finally, often those in the hi-fi press now writing about
these things are the same people who hear big differences
in a few feet of mystery wire.

I've recently seen glowing reports from someone who claimed to have $1 large
per meter interconnects.

How credible are they?

Depends on who you're talking about. There are people with suspended
disbelief in this world, you know. ;-)

For many reasons, it is really
hard to get a handle on this topic in order to make any
reasonable sense out of it.

I'm reminded of an old saying from my days as a HiFi salesman: "Money talks,
BS walks".

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message

wrote in message
...

A problem with discussions like this is that lots of
people give their ideas with little experience to back
up their points. Comments like "surely we can test
more accurately than we can hear is very false. One
has to listen only to a very good turntable with
inaudible wow and flutter (Rega P25 etc.) and then to
a VPI Scoutmaster with the same inaudible wow and
flutter to hear the absolutely superiority of the more
expensive table.

There is a lot more to TT performance than wow and
flutter which
I can't recall hearing since I ditched my BSR changer
for an AR-XA
at the age of 12.

It's quite possible for an AR-XA to have audible wow and
flutter. I'm surprised you never heard it.

What level would you consider audible in music?

The answer is complex, as the audibility of flutter and wow in pure tones is
dependent on the frequency of the flutter and wow. The audibilty of flutter
and wow in music is of course dependent on what tones are in the music, as
well.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i
think needs to be accurately reported. Just what are the
thresholds of audibility when it comes to every known
form of distortion?

This is a very complex question if most of the relevant details are
considered. However, if all forms of spurious responses are below say 100
dB, then it is quite sure that none of them are audible. This is almost as
true at -80 dB. At -60 dB its a mixed bag and some listening pleasure may
be slipping. At -40 dB many things can be audible and pleasure may be
intruded on. At -20 dB just about everything is audible, and many things are
hard to listen to for pleasure.

How about someone actually reporting
the scientific literature on this. Cite the source and
*quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That
would be helpful.

I'm not here to be a free research orgnization. Feel free to publish your
results since you seem to be very interested in the topic.

I'd love to see something more than inference and gossip.

Then stay away from the scientific literature because quite a bit of it is
just inference.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 3:46�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i
think needs to be accurately reported. Just what are the
thresholds of audibility when it comes to every known
form of distortion?

This is a very complex question if most of the relevant details are
considered. However, if all forms of spurious responses are below say 100
dB, then it is quite sure that none of them are audible. *This is almost as
true at -80 dB. *At -60 dB its a mixed bag and some listening pleasure may
be slipping. *At -40 dB many things can be audible and pleasure may be
intruded on. At -20 dB just about everything is audible, and many things are
hard to listen to for pleasure.

But can you cite the scientific literature?


How about someone actually reporting
the scientific literature on this. Cite the source and
*quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That
would be helpful.

I'm not here to be a free research orgnization.

I'm not asking anyone to *do* the research. WOW. I am only asking
someone to cite the research that has already been done. Thosw who
love to refer to it ought to be able to easily cite it and quote the
relevant info easily enough.

Feel free to publish your
results since you seem to be very interested in the topic.

I think you have an odd idea about the actions one normally takes when
they have an interest in a subject. I find quantum physics interesting
too. Do you think I need to get a particle accelerator?


I'd love to see something more than *inference and gossip.

Then stay away from the scientific literature because quite a bit of it is
just inference.

Yeah right. "Nudge nudge wink wink" shows up quite often in scientific
literature I hear.

Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i
think needs to be accurately reported. Just what are the
thresholds of audibility when it comes to every known
form of distortion?

This is a very complex question if most of the relevant details are
considered. However, if all forms of spurious responses are below say 100
dB, then it is quite sure that none of them are audible. This is almost as
true at -80 dB. At -60 dB its a mixed bag and some listening pleasure may
be slipping. At -40 dB many things can be audible and pleasure may be
intruded on. At -20 dB just about everything is audible, and many things are
hard to listen to for pleasure.

How about someone actually reporting
the scientific literature on this. Cite the source and
*quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That
would be helpful.

I'm not here to be a free research orgnization. Feel free to publish your
results since you seem to be very interested in the topic.

Last time I looked, JND even had a wikipeia entry.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 2:42�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how
easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being
fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in
my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But tell
me, do you use controls against a possible bias that
components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere near as strong as the
bias to hear differences when there can't be any, and you'll have a logical
leg to stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists? Hmmm. So you
haven't been doing anything to prevent this bias from affecting your
DBTs? That is unfortunate. How do we know they are worth anything? we
will never know if all those tests were or were not tainted by that
particular bias.


Once you have
established that components sound different what do you
do to prevent bias affects in your prefferences?

I use sonic accuracy as my absolute standard.

Subjectivists often say the same thing only to get blasted for the
lack of bias controls in their auditions. Now do you have an answer to
the question, what do you do to prevent bias effects from affecting
your prefferences?


Case in point - I just bought a Microtrack digital
recorder. I bought it without auditioning it, based on
its technical specs, the credibility of the organization
that published those specs, and several formal and
informal reviews of the product.
Ah, faith based purchase. I think this is a classic case
of being at risk of being fooled. Oh well.

Where's the faith? *Details please.

In the specs.


BTW, I expect it to provide essentially perfect sound
for 3-5 years. ;-)
Ah, then indeed you have been fooled. Perfect sound? No
such thing in audio recording and playback.

I didn't say perfect sound. I said essentially perfect sound. *Do you see
any difference between the two phrases?

For the sake of audio no." Essentially perfect sound" is different
than "perfect sound" in what audible ways? Nothing close to "perfect
sound" or "essentially perfect sound" as I know the meaning of
essential exists in recording and playback. It is an absurdity. All
recording and playback is fundamentally flawed.


I haven't finished my formal and informal evaluation of
the Microtrack, but it seems to be suitable for the
purpose that I purchased it for. I do have return
privileges with a 15% restocking fee, but based on
making about 25 recordings with it, I don't think that
will happen.
I am glad you are happy with your purchase. You are aware
that this is often the case with subjectivists?

I do, as I am a subjectivist.

In the *end the difference is?

Perhaps you could provide a real world counter example involving a similar
product where different means of evaluations were used, to help make that
comment relevant.

OK. I bought my Sound Lab A3s only with sighted listening
evaluations. I didn't use manufacturer's specs or bias controlled
comparisons. I knew the company's reputation. Certainly my biases were
in play. But I thouroughly enjoy these speakers. I am truly thrilled
with them. I love listening to all kinds of music on them. It has been
a couple years now and I am still thrilled with them. So, in the end,
what is the difference? Listener satisfaction is listener
satisfaction.

Scott

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how
easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against
being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in
my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But tell
me, do you use controls against a possible bias that
components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere
near as strong as the bias to hear differences when
there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to
stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists?

Not at all.

I asked for a comparison of the strength of two different kinds of bias:

Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is anywhere as strong as
the bias towards hearing differences when there are none.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 19, 3:46?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i
think needs to be accurately reported. Just what are the
thresholds of audibility when it comes to every known
form of distortion?

This is a very complex question if most of the relevant
details are considered. However, if all forms of
spurious responses are below say 100 dB, then it is
quite sure that none of them are audible. This is almost
as true at -80 dB. At -60 dB its a mixed bag and some
listening pleasure may be slipping. At -40 dB many
things can be audible and pleasure may be intruded on.
At -20 dB just about everything is audible, and many
things are hard to listen to for pleasure.

But can you cite the scientific literature?


How about someone actually reporting
the scientific literature on this. Cite the source and
*quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That
would be helpful.

I'm not here to be a free research orgnization.

I'm not asking anyone to *do* the research.

Sure you are, you are asking for research of scientific literature.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 3:42?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how
easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against
being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in
my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But tell
me, do you use controls against a possible bias that
components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere
near as strong as the bias to hear differences when
there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to
stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists?

Not at all.

I asked for a comparison of the strength of two different kinds of bias:

Why? Are you now denying that biases of many kinds can have a profound
affect? The bottom line is you did nothing to prevent *this* bias from
affecting your tests. You simply do not know that it didn't profoundly
affect things.


Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is anywhere as strong as
the bias towards hearing differences when there are none.

Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all your tests.
That is the ONLY thing that matters. And the truth is you will never
know without repeating ll those tests with a control for that
particular bias.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 3:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 19, 3:46?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



Ah, the thresholds of audibility. that is something i
think needs to be accurately reported. Just what are the
thresholds of audibility when it comes to every known
form of distortion?

This is a very complex question if most of the relevant
details are considered. However, if all forms of
spurious responses are below say 100 dB, then it is
quite sure that none of them are audible. This is almost
as true at -80 dB. At -60 dB its a mixed bag and some
listening pleasure may be slipping. At -40 dB many
things can be audible and pleasure may be intruded on.
At -20 dB just about everything is audible, and many
things are hard to listen to for pleasure.

But can you cite the scientific literature?

Apparently not. Oh well.


How about someone actually reporting
the scientific literature on this. Cite the source and
*quote* the relevant data in it's proper context. That
would be helpful.

I'm not here to be a free research orgnization.

I'm not asking anyone to *do* the research.

Sure you are, you are asking for research of scientific literature.

*Citing*and *quoting* it isn't the same as *doing* it. If you actually
have the material at your disposal it should be quite easy. You asked
me to do the same thing for my claims about the King Siper Analog LPs
and I did. I quoted the source and cited where it came from. It was
real easy. If you have the actual research at your disposal it should
be every bit as easy for you. If you don't then what the heck are you
basing your claims on? It seems you don't have it. Otherwise why keep
it a secret?

Scott

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how
easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against
being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in
my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But tell
me, do you use controls against a possible bias that
components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere
near as strong as the bias to hear differences when
there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to
stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists?

Not at all.

I asked for a comparison of the strength of two different kinds of bias:

Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is anywhere as strong as
the bias towards hearing differences when there are none.

Attempting to prove the negative is a logical fallacy. Those who
require such proof simply do not understand that very most basic
concept.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[MC]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is anywhere as strong
as
the bias towards hearing differences when there are none.

Attempting to prove the negative is a logical fallacy. Those who
require such proof simply do not understand that very most basic
concept.

Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being
considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias
toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very
straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of
experiments that involve human perception.

"You can't prove a negative" actually (insofar as it is true) refers to a
quite different logical problem involving crossed quantifiers, e.g., "no two
snowflakes are alike" (in an open-ended set of snowflakes, not just a finite
set you can examine). Formally, "for every snowflake X there does not exist
a snowflake Y that matches it."

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 22 Mar 2007 03:20:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

Attempting to prove the negative is a logical fallacy.

Not only isn't it a fallacy, it is commonly done, especially in
Mathematics and occasionally in physics. In audio it is easily proven
that there are no loudspeakers with an efficiency of greater than 100%,
for example. This follows trivially from the laws of physics as do many
other negatives.

Those who
require such proof simply do not understand that very most basic
concept.

So the Greeks, who proved millenea ago that there are exactly no pairs
of whole numbers whose ratio, multiplied by itself, equals two, were all
hallucinating I suppose? As are all the modern textbooks that repeat
their proof!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a
scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was
the scientists and engineers who have given us the
ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of
live musical performances into our living rooms.

Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it
was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out
the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised
"perfect sound forever", first in early transistor
amplifiers, and later in early CD players.

Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early
SS amps had "perfect
sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely
discussed. However, their audible flaws were minor
compared to their lack of reliablity.

Reliability may have been the main issue to engineers.
To audiophiles, it was vile sound.

The vile sound often involved amplifiers that had become defective in use
due to their relatively fragility.

Their vile sound was because it was a new technology that engineers hadn't
yet figured out how to make sound good.


The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound
forever" was part of an
advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising
pitches with adequate technical statements of equipment
performance deserves what they get.

Except of course for the engineers (Sony and otherwise)
who were all over the audio magazines, arguing that CD's
indeed did offer "perfect sound'.

The CD format has always and continues to prvoide sonically transparent
recording and reproduction of music.

And some continue to this day. :-(


You continue to take
very much that same position today, arguing that they are
the ultimate in transparency (what else is "perfect
sound").

It is well known that the ear is oblivious to many changes that are easy
to
measure. Therefore a format that is far from perfect can be sonically
transparent.

That avoids the claim you made earlier, viz the above.


However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that
appears to be well-maintained. This was one of the two
original CD players. I defy anybody
to detect its insertion into an audio system playing
back typical recordings.

But of course none of us have access to that machine, and
you don't have access to our systems.

It would be a simple matter to provide high sample rate, high bit depth
recordings before and after passage through the CDP 101 any reasonble
number
of times.

Once again, Arny prefers a PC simulation to testing the "real thing".
Thus adding layers of potentially obscuring digitalitus.


So that is a bit
of a piece of fluff, unless you want to offer to send it
(or bring it) to some of us for audition.

Depends on whether or not the listener can cathect with a highly accurate
recording of the equipment's output as being representative of its
performance.

I have no idea what this means. Can you repeat please, with correct
spelling of whatever you meant?


And it was
audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to
describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew
where to focus their attention.

Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a
descriptive language that was first developed by
recording engineers and sound system installation
engineers.

In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I
have ever heard this claim.

It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers and sound system
installation engineers couldn't articulate their perceptions using a
descriptive language to describe what they heard, until some reviewers
made
it up.

So, you admit you made the claim up. Not very nice, Arny.

And why is it so ludicrous, when you and others still have trouble talking
about "sound" as opposed to measurements?


For one thing, actual development and limited use of equipment,
historically
proceeded offering up equipment for review in some publication. The egg
comes before the review of the egg.

An iterative process...eggs lead to chickens lead to more eggs lead to
more chickens. Did I say that some engineer somewhere did not come up
with an improvement on their own without the benefit of a special
language. Straw man argument in the extreme.


It takes both good
engineering knowledge and good listening skills to
create superior audio equipment, even if the
engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields.

As a rule audio journalists do not use proper
descriptive teminology. They tend to write poetry, not
usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES standard,
AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms.

Let's see. Stereophile was formed in, when, 1965? And
TAS was formed in 1974. Let's see when the AES Standards
Committee started to work. The following is extracted
from the AES web page on standards:

"AES Standards - a short history
"Standards activity in the AES started shortly after the
Society was founded. In the early days, the AES Standards
Committee (AESSC) mainly acted as a reporting agency to
the membership through the Journal on the activities of
IEC TC 29 and audio-related activities of other standards
organisations such as EIA, SMPTE, IEEE, and the
Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Even though the AES
at this time was not producing documents, many AES
members contributed to standards through these other
organisations. "In 1977, stimulated by the growing need
for standards in digital audio, the AES Digital Audio
Standards Committee was formed. It was responsible for
creating some fundamental standards such as the AES3
digital audio interface - sometimes known as the AES/EBU
interface - and standards for sampling frequency and
synchronisation which are still in use today.

"In 1980, a full-time secretary (Dan Queen) was
appointed. At about the same time, the AES became the
secretariat of ANSI S4 (which continued until 2001). In
1984, the procedures of the AESSC were revised to improve
the openness and consensus of our due process, modelled
on IEC directives and drawing from the examples of the
ASA, IEEE and SMPTE"

So the earlierst the AES standards could exist was 1977,
more than ten years after J. Gordon Holt started defining
terms, and three years after Harry Pearson turned them
into a glossary. And since the above suggests that the
AES/EBU interface was the group's initial focus, and
since they have only developed 43 standards (of which #22
falls somewhere in the middle), it is almost impossible
to accept that the AES definitions preceded the
audiophile editors work.

Formal use generally follows informal use, sometimes by many years.

Again, IMO a deliberate attempt to misinform.

I know for sure that much of the terminology in AES22 was used by audio
technical persons for many years before the AES started work on
formalizing
it.

I see...a specific claim is now replaced with "trust me....". Sorry, no
reason to.


As far back as he goes, Gordon Holt didn't invent audio reviewing. For
example, there were audio reviews in High Fidelity Magazine, which was
founded in 1951. Holt didn't sell his first article to them until about 2
years later.

Did I say Gordon Holt invented audio reviewing. No such thing. I did say
he started developing the Lexicon that Harry Pearson later furthered and
codified, putting a descriptive language on audio phenomen. Look at the
flames coming from that burning scarecrow.


I've talked to people who were installing audio systems in the 1930s, and
they had a descriptive language to describe what they heard back then. I
first encountered it when I started reading audio articles in 1953. I
heard
it when I started working professionally in audio, in 1962. It was
already
well-developed way back then.

I was the son of a father who was in that business, Arny. And who worked
alongside him in the store and studio. And who accompanied him as he
installed Magnacorders in radio stations and studios all over the
Northeast. And so far as I can remember, in the 50's there were few
descriptive words for the sound of music reproduced by audio gear. It was
simply too new, and just reaching hi-fi status. I can read the jackets of
Cook's "Sound of Our Times" records in my collection, or the red vinyl
"Audiophile" 78rpm microgroove recordings. There is not a single
descriptive word on them about their sound. But these were produced by
knowledgeable engineers specializing in the best sound quality of the day.

Excuse me if I don't really believe you. "Trust me..." doesn't work for
me anymore.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 22, 3:27�pm, "MC" wrote:

Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. *Two possible biases are being
considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias
toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. *This is a very
straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of
experiments that involve human perception.

Why even ask which is stronger? Why not just eliminate all of them?

Scott

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 21, 3:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know
how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against
being fooled when you make purchase choices in
audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls
in my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But
tell me, do you use controls against a possible bias
that components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere
near as strong as the bias to hear differences when
there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to
stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists?

Not at all.

I asked for a comparison of the strength of two
different kinds of bias:

Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is
anywhere as strong as the bias towards hearing
differences when there are none.

no relevant answer

Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all
your tests.

First off, I didn't do all the tests that I reference. Some of them were
done by people with a strong bias towards hearing differences. For example,
consider the many tests that John Atkinson that failed to have a positive
outcome for audible differences. Consider the tests that were done by Larry
Greenhill. Consider the fact that when I started doing tests, I had a stong
bias for audible differences.