[bob]

On Apr 9, 10:04=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

I thought the whole point of the study was that the delayed brain
reaction took place *only* when the ultrasonic content was included.
That would indicate that there is no advantage to longer listening
times when standard recording techniques are used.

Not at all. =A0That "finding" was determined in the preliminary work lead=
ing
up to the test.

Go back and read the article, Harry. It clearly states that there was
no delayed brain reaction *except* when the ultrasonic content was
presented. Which means that this study provides *no* basis for
assuming that long presentations are necessary for listening tests,
unless there is sufficient ultrasonic content to trigger the
"hypersonic effect," whatever that is. And given the extraordinary
efforts both the Oohashi team and the NHK team had to go through to
produce material with sufficient ultrasonic content, it's safe to
assume that long listening periods are almost never necessary.

snip

Why do you have so much difficulty separating the elegance of test design
from the specifics of the results.

I don't think it's a particularly elegant test. I think it's a really
bad test that happened to produce a positive result in this case, but
would inevitably produce negative results in many other cases where
audible differences are in fact present. I seriously doubt this test
could pass peer review in a psychoacoustics journal, and I am
absolutely certain it wouldn't pass if it produced a negative result.

The only reason to believe this test is "elegant" is if you like the
result it produced in this case.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 6, 4:56=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:

[...discussion of what is the goal of discussion and similar matters
snipped...]
=A0 There is nothing that supports yours. But
=A0 not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
=A0 peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
=A0 principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can b=
e
=A0 applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
=A0 differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
=A0 former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
=A0 speak.
=A0
=A0 You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
=A0 corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
=A0 transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
=A0 about such claims.

see below...

[...irreleveant discussion about counting papers snipped..]
=A0 And just
=A0 because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't m=
ake
=A0 it right.
=A0 That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence"=
on
=A0 one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?
=A0 There isn't.
=A0
=A0 Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one doe=
s
=A0 not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
=A0 science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
=A0 The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
=A0 plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
=A0 the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
=A0 support the assertion of amplifier transparency.
=A0
=A0
=A0 But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
=A0 understand.
=A0
=A0 Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't the=
re
=A0 the claim of scientific support is bogus.

The science is there. But denial is not a river in Egypt.

People keep saying it's there but no one seems to be able to cite
anything. Citations please...



=A0 A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be fo=
und
=A0 in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stan=
d up
=A0 in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if yo=
ur
=A0 colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know =
of
=A0 only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear direc=
tly.
=A0 I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
=A0 I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
=A0 things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
=A0 this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened t=
hat
=A0 a text book was published with information that later turned out t=
o be
=A0 eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid tes=
t of
=A0 every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
=A0 The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my po=
int
=A0 of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
=A0 Greek letter omega.
=A0
=A0 =A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
=A0 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? Y=
ou
=A0 do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of =
a
=A0 whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.

It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diplom=
a
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy. the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.



The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).


Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing. But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.


Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devices=
..

If distortion is

[snipped hypathetical discussion] If.....


=A0 I get the feeling
=A0 you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.

You can't speak for Bob.



=A0 As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests=
on
=A0 the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped ag=
ainst
=A0 the measured performance of audio gear.
=A0 And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of =
peer
=A0 reviewed published studies.
=A0 What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon =
has
=A0 a search function, too.
=A0
=A0 Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability t=
o
=A0 find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
=A0 your burden of proof. I =A0ask =A0knowing there is nothing to suppor=
t your
=A0 assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things like
long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
flat. It simply is not flat, .

Argument by incredulity is a logical fallacy. This is just posturing.
Support the argument with valid scientific evidence that directly
relates to the subject at hand. Anything else is just more hand
waving. I would like to note at this point that whenever I ask fo the
science what i get is ad hominem and a wide array of arguments that
are filled with stereotypical logical fallacies. What I have never got
in any of these responses is any actual citations of peer reviewed
papers that support the argument of amplifier transparency. It wasn't
that long ago that the most recent version of creationism/ID was put
to the test in the courts. A defender, the infamous Michael Behe
testified that there was no scientific evidence of the evolution of
imune systems. In response the opposition produced a stack of
published peer reviewed papers. Here is a photo of that actual stack
along with an article on subject.http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/
immunology-spotlight-at-dover-intelligent-design-trial. now that is
scientific evidence! On the subjct of amplifier transparency we have
no such stack. That is the difference between the real scientists
supporting real science and the posturing we have here about the
science of amplifier transparency.

Show me the stack!!!

Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
bring the science not the rhetoric.



=A0 The DBTs that have been done,
=A0 either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
=A0 science.
=A0 What science? Show me the actual science, please.
=A0 If I thought you wanted to know, I would.
=A0
=A0 =A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.

It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.

More rhetoric. Show me the science.



=A0 Feel free to prove
=A0 me wrong.

There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn'=
t
there"...

More rhetoric sans any actual science.

Again, show me the Stack!!!

i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 10:04 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip
snip

Why do you have so much difficulty separating the elegance of test design
from the specifics of the results.

I don't think it's a particularly elegant test. I think it's a really
bad test that happened to produce a positive result in this case, but
would inevitably produce negative results in many other cases where
audible differences are in fact present. I seriously doubt this test
could pass peer review in a psychoacoustics journal, and I am
absolutely certain it wouldn't pass if it produced a negative result.

The only reason to believe this test is "elegant" is if you like the
result it produced in this case.

You don't think a test with this much attention to detail throughout, and
cross-correlating perception ratings and brain-scan measurements is not
elegant? Then may I suggest you reconsider your understanding of the word
"elegant".

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn't*
give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Actually it's an argument by authority

So, peer-reviewed papers have no possible effect on your viewpoint, given
that they are just an example of argument by authority?

One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers.

That has been done, and you've been dismissing the relevant documents for
years.

Looks to me like you've painted yourself into a logic-tight box, Scott.

[bob]

On Apr 10, 12:28=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn't=
*
give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?

In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.

But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
weeds).

And the design is utterly unnecessary. As the subsequent paper I cited
found, a simple same-different test (and ABX is just a form of same-
different test) can get the same result.

Now, that doesn't mean Oohashi et al were wrong to use that test. They
were after something more than just, can you hear a difference. But if
the question you want to answer is, can you hear a difference, it's a
lousy test because it can produce false negatives in cases where
standard tests will not.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 10, 7:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Actually it's an argument by authority

So, =A0peer-reviewed papers have no possible effect on your viewpoint, gi=
ven
that they are just an example of argument by authority?

how does this even get through? What did I say in my post? I said
among other things (I'll quote myself) " Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag." And here we have a comment that misrperesents my
"viewpoint." IOW no science as asked for just posturing about me. Pure
rhetoric.





One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers.

That has been done, and you've been dismissing the relevant documents for
years.

Once again pure posturing. It has not been done here on Rec audio high
end. It certainly has not been done in this thread. I've asked for it
numerous times. In my last post I explicitely asked, I'll quote myself
again "Support the argument with valid scientific evidence that
directly
relates to the subject at hand. Anything else is just more hand
waving. I would like to note at this point that whenever I ask fo the
science what i get is ad hominem and a wide array of arguments that
are filled with stereotypical logical fallacies. What I have never
got
in any of these responses is any actual citations of peer reviewed
papers that support the argument of amplifier transparency."
Nothing here has changed. Still no stack. Not even a cover sheet. not
even a quote from a single page. Just posturing and ad hominem.



Looks to me like you've painted yourself into a logic-tight box, Scott.

I'll say it again. " Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag."

Now one may say my post has zero audio content but that is because
every point I am responding to has zero audio content. And yet I
explicitely asked for all responses to my arguments to be 100%
substance in the form of real scientific evidence that supports
amplifier transparency. Or at the very least a corolation between all
measured parameters of amps and the thresholds of human hearing. I am
not interested in discussing *me* in any way shape or form. The folks
here never get it right anyway so stop it. It isn't about me. the
words "you" "Scott" (unless it is someone else named Scott with
relevant peer reviewed papers on the subject) "your" "you're" have no
place in any future discsuiions on the scientific support for the
assertion of amplifier transparency. *I* am not the subject of the
discsussion. Is that so difficult to understand?

This is the end of the discussion about me. Got it?

[ Let's bring it back to audio, please. -- dsr ]

[C. Leeds]

On 4/4/2011 2:54 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about identifying the magazine
he claims to write for):

Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds,

What do you mean? You routinely respond to my posts here.

I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name or
by identifying the publication.

How very odd! There is no apparent conflict of interest. And for the
magazine to refuse to identify itself really looks fishy. I've worked in
media and publishing for quite a while and never heard of such a policy.

What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
now, wouldn't they?

So why not identify yourself?
Certainly, you're entitled to anonymity here. But you can't complain if
some readers just think you're a crank living in your parents basement.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 10, 7:36=A0am, bob wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:28=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:



And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn=
't*
give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually exclusive?

el=B7e=B7gance (l-gns)
n.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:29:34 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

On 4/4/2011 2:54 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about identifying the magazine
he claims to write for):

Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds,

What do you mean? You routinely respond to my posts here.

I have responded to one or two before I figured out that it's an empty and
totally uninteresting undertaking.

I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name
or
by identifying the publication.

How very odd! There is no apparent conflict of interest. And for the
magazine to refuse to identify itself really looks fishy. I've worked in
media and publishing for quite a while and never heard of such a policy.

What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
now, wouldn't they?

So why not identify yourself?
Certainly, you're entitled to anonymity here. But you can't complain if
some readers just think you're a crank living in your parents basement.



This is the last response I'll ever make to you, Mr. Leeds. You are a
pedantic contrarian who argues just to be negative and who seems unable to
follow a conversation's context. I have made that vow before and have broken
it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself - more
for everyone else's benefit than for yours, I might add.

If you want to think that I'm a crank, living in my parents' basement, that's
up to you. Perhaps by believing that, you will find it unnecessary to ever
address anything that I might say here, again. That would be a blessing.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it
*doesn't*
give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?

In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.

But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
weeds).

You are wrong in this, Bob. There IS a statistically significant
difference. Only it is not a conscious one, but rather an unconscious one
that shows up in the brain scans and in the more favorable ratings on some
musical attributes.

As the results of the test point out, the results (on a statistically
significant basis) can tell you not only that there was a difference, but
exactly where those differences lie. And the fact that the subjects
themselves couldn't consciously identify those differences, but their brains
and subconscious could, thus leading to the the statistical differences in
ratings and brain scan, are part of the eloquence of this test. As is the
relaxed listening environment set up. As is the split speaker-amplifier set
up (even though you assume but have no proof that it was inadequate). As is
the sophisticated double-blind sampling techique, and on, and on, and on.

And the design is utterly unnecessary. As the subsequent paper I cited
found, a simple same-different test (and ABX is just a form of
same-ifferent test) can get the same result.

Now, that doesn't mean Oohashi et al were wrong to use that test. They
were after something more than just, can you hear a difference. But if
the question you want to answer is, can you hear a difference, it's a
lousy test because it can produce false negatives in cases where
standard tests will not.

And as I suggested above, it's strength is that it may be able to identify
things that one hears "unconsciously" . It has long been postulated that
some long term perception of audio differences arises from an unconsious
feeling that this aspect is wrong, or that aspect is wrong but since it is
unconscious, it can't be dredged to the surface at will. Either all the
time for the hobbyist making the observation, and especially "upon demand"
for a highly conscious ABX difference test.

[bob]

On Apr 10, 8:51=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."
Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?
In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.
But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
weeds).

You are wrong in this, Bob.

No, you are misunderstanding what I am talking about. Perhaps I can
make things clearer.

I am addressing the question of whether the *listening test
methodology* used by Oohashi et al is a good test to use for
determining whether there are audible differences between two
presentations. I am NOT talking about the specific test/results
reported by Oohashi. Now, go back and read it again and see if what I
said makes more sense.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:



And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
you explain what part of its design and execution are
"bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
exclusive?


It might be more dialect or custom than formal definition, but "an elegant
solution" has generally meant a relatively simple solution.

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/defi...egant-solution

"An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to problems in
disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and programming, is one in
which the maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or simplest
effort. "

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 11, 5:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
you explain what part of its design and execution are
"bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
exclusive?

It might be more dialect or custom than formal definition, but "an elegan=
t
solution" has generally meant a relatively simple solution.

"elegant solution?" Who are you quoting? I would agree that elegance
and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but I would not agree that
elegance and complexity are mutually exclusive. I don't se any
particular lack of elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex test.


http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/defi...egant-solution

"An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to problems in
disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and programming, is one in
which the maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or simple=
st
effort. "

Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi might have
used that would have addressed the hypothesis in it's entirety?
Maximum desired effect achieved with the simplest or smallest effort
does not preclude a complex effort depending on the desired effect.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.

It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.

Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.

As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.


The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).


Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.

The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.

It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).



Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devices.

If distortion is

[snipped hypathetical discussion] If.....

You snipped actual reasoning. In the very part you snipped there were
realistic (rather conservative in fact) numbers for an amplifier.

Don't snip releveant dicussion and then claim there is no discussion...


I get the feeling
you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.

You can't speak for Bob.

It doesn't matter one iota for the undefinedness of 0/0.


As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
the measured performance of audio gear.
And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
reviewed published studies.
What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
a search function, too.

Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
your burden of proof. I ask knowing there is nothing to support your
assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things like
long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
flat. It simply is not flat, .

[general complaints about ad hominem against poster and OT discussion of
ID vs evolution court fight snipped]
Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
bring the science not the rhetoric.

If you write blattanly false things or mathematical nonsense like that
about 0/0 accept the reality that the *will* be named as such. No offense,
but a (mathematical) nonsense is a (mathematical) nonsense.


The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.
What science? Show me the actual science, please.
If I thought you wanted to know, I would.

The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.

It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.

More rhetoric. Show me the science.

See below...

Feel free to prove
me wrong.

There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn't
there"...

More rhetoric sans any actual science.

Again, show me the Stack!!!

OK:

Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
New York, 1994.

Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.

Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.

Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997

Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2000.

Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
2, June 1974.

Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Los
Angeles, Sept 2000.

Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.

Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
Press, 2008.


i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.


It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Apr 11, 5:53 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
you explain what part of its design and execution are
"bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
exclusive?

It might be more dialect or custom than formal
definition, but "an elegant solution" has generally
meant a relatively simple solution.

"elegant solution?" Who are you quoting?

I'm citing common knowlege among tech folks, which you might not be privy
to.

I would agree
that elegance and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but
I would not agree that elegance and complexity are
mutually exclusive.

That wasn't said, exactly. The qualifier "relatively" implies that
simplicity is relative. IOW if you know how complex the solution can get,
anything that is appreciably simpler could properly be called elegant.

I don't se any particular lack of
elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex
test.

The global hypothesis of the Oohashi paper is given in its abstract:

"Although it is generally accepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in the
frequency range above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of such
"inaudible" high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception of
audible sounds remains unanswered. "

Let's skip over the obvious conundrum where it is conceeded in the abstract
that "humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range above 20 kHz" but
that yet they "may affect the acoustic perception "... ;-)

In some sense any of the far less complex solutions such as a simple ABX
test with recordings and reproduction chain capable of clean reproduction
with a sufficient bandpass (readily available these days) could provide
comparable results.

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/defi...egant-solution

"An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to
problems in disciplines such as mathematics,
engineering, and programming, is one in which the
maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or
simplest effort. "

Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi
might have used that would have addressed the hypothesis
in it's entirety?

See above. When you properly compare a recording with significant content
above 20 kHz to the identical same recording that is brick wall filtered at
20 KHz, you are addressing the hypothesis. It's all about perception, right?

Maximum desired effect achieved with
the simplest or smallest effort does not preclude a
complex effort depending on the desired effect.

The more complexity, the greater the possibility of a hidden influence. Many
of us learned that when we did scientific experiments to pass lab courses in
order to get our technical degrees. The Arts students, not so much! :-(

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.

It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.

Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.

As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious

True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands of
functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and many
of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.

and do not require additional scrutiny.

Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier transparency
is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
accepted fact.

If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be the
case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven), then
no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear even
minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").


The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).


Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.

The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

You're going to have to prove that assertion. I've known lots of audiophiles
in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
clipping levels. OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot stand
to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
isn't.



But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.

It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).

According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the manufacturer's
specs and is not broken. Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that one
poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.


snip

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 12, 6:58=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Apr 11, 5:53 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
you explain what part of its design and execution are
"bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
exclusive?
It might be more dialect or custom than formal
definition, but "an elegant solution" has generally
meant a relatively simple solution.
"elegant solution?" Who are you quoting?

I'm citing common knowlege among tech folks, which you might not be privy
to.

I would agree
that elegance and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but
I would not agree that elegance and complexity are
mutually exclusive.

That wasn't said, exactly. The qualifier "relatively" implies that
simplicity is relative. IOW if you know how complex the solution can get,
anything that is appreciably simpler could properly be called elegant.

I don't se any particular lack of
elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex
test.

The global hypothesis of the Oohashi paper is given in its abstract:

"Although it is generally accepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in =
the
frequency range above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of su=
ch
"inaudible" high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception =
of
audible sounds remains unanswered. "

Let's skip over the obvious conundrum where it is conceeded in the abstra=
ct
that "humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range above 20 kHz" =
but
that yet they "may affect the acoustic perception "... ;-)

In some sense any of the far less complex solutions such as a simple ABX
test with recordings and reproduction chain capable of clean reproduction
with a sufficient bandpass (readily available these days) could provide
comparable results.

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/defi...egant-solution
"An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to
problems in disciplines such as mathematics,
engineering, and programming, is one in which the
maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or
simplest effort. "
Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi
might have used that would have addressed the hypothesis
in it's entirety?

See above. When you properly compare a recording with significant content
above 20 kHz to the identical same recording that is brick wall filtered =
at
20 KHz, you are addressing the hypothesis. It's all about perception, rig=
ht?

Maximum desired effect achieved with
the simplest or smallest effort does not preclude a
complex effort depending on the desired effect.

The more complexity, the greater the possibility of a hidden influence. M=
any
of us learned that when we did scientific experiments to pass lab courses=
in
order to get our technical degrees. The Arts students, not so much! :-(

There is one important detail in the paper that seems to be crucial in
the choice of methodology.
" the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be parallel with
the =93conscious=94 audibility of air vibration."
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full
If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go beyond ABX
comparisons since they are not proven to address biological
sensitivity of human beings that are not parallel with the concious
audibility of air vibration.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 12, 3:45=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be fou=
nd
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand=
up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if you=
r
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know o=
f
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear direct=
ly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened th=
at
a text book was published with information that later turned out to=
be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test=
of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my poi=
nt
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

=A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? Yo=
u
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.

It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period=
..
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't ev=
ent
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy dip=
loma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.

Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.

But it is entirely avoidable in this thread. Good to see you
acknowledge the failure of the logic though.


the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.

As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existenc=
e
of tooth fairies.

And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.


IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
transparency.



If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) ar=
e
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it doe=
s
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
does not. I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
Feel free to do so any time.



The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).

Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.

The corelation is trivial.

Then show it. enough with the posturing.

If

Not interested in hypotheticals.


But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.

It simply would not.

Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.





Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devi=
ces.

If distortion is

[snipped hypothetical discussion] If.....

You snipped actual reasoning.

No I snipped an argument based on hypothetical situations. I am asking
for real science here. That wasn't it. That makes it irrelevant.


Don't snip releveant dicussion and then claim there is no discussion...

I haven't.



I get the feeling
you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.

You can't speak for Bob.

It doesn't matter one iota for the undefinedness of 0/0.

What does that have to do with my feeling Bob was trying to imply that
his zero was better than my zero?







As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests =
on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped aga=
inst
the measured performance of audio gear.
And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of p=
eer
reviewed published studies.
What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon h=
as
a search function, too.

Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
your burden of proof. I =A0ask =A0knowing there is nothing to support=
your
assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things l=
ike
long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
flat. It simply is not flat, .

[general complaints about ad hominem against poster and OT discussion of
ID vs evolution court fight snipped]

Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
bring the science not the rhetoric.

If you write blattanly false things or mathematical nonsense like that
about 0/0 accept the reality that the *will* be named as such. No offense=
,
but a (mathematical) nonsense is a (mathematical) nonsense.

How does this support the claim for the scientific validity of the
belief in amplifier transparency? Please try to stay on subject rather
than looking for any opportunity to use ad hominem.



The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.
What science? Show me the actual science, please.
If I thought you wanted to know, I would.

=A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.

It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.

More rhetoric. Show me the science.

See below...

Yeah I saw below. Please see disection that follows....



Feel free to prove
me wrong.

There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your lo=
gic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science i=
sn't
there"...

More rhetoric sans any actual science.

Again, show me the Stack!!!

OK:

Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next


Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
New York, 1994.

No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
transparency....next


=A0 Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next


Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.

Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?



=A0 Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.

Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997

Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2000.

Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
2, June 1974.

Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Lo=
s
Angeles, Sept 2000.

Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.

Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
Press, 2008.

Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
"stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.





i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
into the subject. =A0 That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.

It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.


What is wrong with the logic I have presented?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.
I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.
Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.
As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious

True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands of
functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and many
of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.

Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?

For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
factories, sales network, etc.

Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.

and do not require additional scrutiny.

Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier transparency
is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
accepted fact.

As noted above, scientific obviousness does not require popular
acceptance. Scientific obviousness is decided by scientific reasoning
based on scientifically well established facts, not by popular vote.


If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be the
case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven), then
no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear even
minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").

Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.
Straight speaker wire reactance effects when speakers have low impedance
approaches much closer to hearing thresholds (in some cases we're just
there at the border[*], in many we're less than an order of magnitude
away) than contemporary amplifier signals.

[*] Not so long time ago we were both participating in a thread where the
were actual calculations presented for some speakers showing effects just
behind the border of audibility -- like more than 1dB difference at around
8kHz. If such difference were in 3-5kHz range it would be certainly on
audible side. Thanks to significant (decline in human ear resolution above
~5kHz that effect is rather on the other side, but it's pretty close anyways.


The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).

Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

You're going to have to prove that assertion.

Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
for all.

There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.

I've known lots of audiophiles
in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
clipping levels.

Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.

As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
started to quote their own results. How 'surprising'

OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot stand
to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
isn't.

But psychoacoustic studies has taken this into account.



But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.
It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).

According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the manufacturer's
specs and is not broken.

Nope. Not at all. It's specs must show it's performance is beyond hearing
thresholds. Of course they must be there from the start.

If your claim that the thing had visible notch

Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that one
poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of existence of tooth fairies.

And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.

Scott, you seem to think that *logic according to Scott* is some kind of
gold standard that we all need to honor. All one needs to do is look at your
audio system to see that logic according to Scott leads to many dramatic
inefficiencies.

IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of
amplifier transparency.

Amplifier transparency can be demonstrated so easily that it simply isn't
worth the peer reviewed paper that you demand. It is simply a part of life
that was settled both practically and theorectically over 20 years ago, and
you haven't caught up.

So, you're caught on a treadmill of eternal upgrades. Beem there, done that
but haven't wasted my life with that (except for demonstration purposes) for
over 30 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


There is one important detail in the paper that seems to
be crucial in the choice of methodology.
" the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be
parallel with the “conscious” audibility of air
vibration."
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

And that is an interesting hypothesis or fact, depending on how you mean it.

The fact part of it is that we both feel and hear air vibrations.

The question of unconscious perception is really a general psychological
question, not an audio question. I tend to favor it.

If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go
beyond ABX comparisons since they are not proven to
address biological sensitivity of human beings that are
not parallel with the concious audibility of air
vibration.

Wrong - why can't ABX tests include the effects of unconscious perceptions?

The answer is that if unconscious perceptions were important, then ABX tests
would already be demonstrating that.

There's no bias against unconscious perceptions in ABX tests. In fact I've
scored well in ABX tests where I did not have a conscious perception of a
difference. I just followed my unconscious perceptions and obtained
statistically signicant results.

Hmm, no MRI! ;-)

[Fred Dag]

Originally Posted by bob

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
[color=blue][i]
If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
psychoacoustics journals?


This from a man who can't present even one iota of plausibly
scientific evidence in favor of his position.

bob

For decades debates of this kind have raged on newsgroups (remember them?) and audio forums. Nobody that I've ever been aware of has ever had their opinion changed or even slightly modified by such discussions. From my perspective two things are important. 1.Double blind testing has never been offered to me by any audio retailer I've ever dealt with. 2, So, old or new gear I judge on purely subjective terms and put my money down even if my reactions might be considered delusional by some. It's amazing though how a multitude of such deluded evaluations have resulted in ever more enjoyment of recorded music over the ages. I run an assortment of up to the minute and re-designed older technology that somehow gets me closer to the heart and soul of music without having to wade through tedious debates about objective V subjective evaluations. Call me an idiot if you will.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message


There is one important detail in the paper that seems to
be crucial in the choice of methodology.
" the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be
parallel with the "conscious" audibility of air
vibration."
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

And that is an interesting hypothesis or fact, depending on how you mean
it.

The fact part of it is that we both feel and hear air vibrations.

The question of unconscious perception is really a general psychological
question, not an audio question. I tend to favor it.

If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go
beyond ABX comparisons since they are not proven to
address biological sensitivity of human beings that are
not parallel with the concious audibility of air
vibration.

Wrong - why can't ABX tests include the effects of unconscious
perceptions?

The answer is that if unconscious perceptions were important, then ABX
tests
would already be demonstrating that.

There's no bias against unconscious perceptions in ABX tests. In fact I've
scored well in ABX tests where I did not have a conscious perception of a
difference. I just followed my unconscious perceptions and obtained
statistically signicant results.

Hmm, no MRI! ;-)


This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point to a consideration
that to me is the potentially devastating flaw in ABX testing....the
psychological phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms, when
something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in the unconscious. And
there is a ton of work been done in the last few decades that show that
music and its emotional and biological importance to the human being is
buried very deep in the human psyche. One can surmise, therefore, that it
manifests itself in the unconscious as well as the conscious.....if you
doubt this, read "Musicophilia - Tales of Music and the Brain" by Dr. Oliver
Sacks (yes, Arny, we know you glanced at it when I last recommended it and
decided you didn't find merit in it. Nonetheless...... )

So why do I say "potentially devastating". Because if our sublest musical
discernment can arise in an unconscious state (as many audiophiles attest)
and rise flickeringly to consciousness while in a relaxed state, then the
very fact of ABX forcing a CONSCIOUS choice becomes an intervening variable.
Simply put, the test itself is invalid because what it measures isn't what
it thinks it measures.

This was emphasized just recently to me by a personal example from the
medical field....that of heart monitoring. I have developed a tendency to
faintheadedness during the last four years, and recent testing suggests a
random irregularity in my heart beat. Diet has not been ruled out
completely, but the docs work suggests the heart. So over the last four
years I have been subjected to three bouts of heart monitoring....the
doctors do this routinely, and hope that when this lightheadedness occurs,
the monitor while be able to discern what
the heart is doing differently, or not. Guess what? In thirty-two days of
testing, I have never had such a lightheaded event. Never. Despit
maintaining my normal routine, including walking four miles in the morning
several days a week. The last two weeks, lightheadedness at least once
during the walk every day....this week, monitor on, nothing.

Now some of you will say, well you changed SOMETHING. True, you have to
accomodate wearing the monitor but this doesn't really change what normally
triggers the lightheadedness....steady walking, arising from a chair, etc.
The biggest change is that I am conscious of the fact that I am being
"monitored"....and this very awareness seems to change the way my body deals
with whatever stimulus is provoking the lightheadedness, and it is doing so
unconsciously. The doctor says a lot of patients exhibit this pattern, but
that doesn't mean that they don't turn out to have problems, its just that
eventually they show up via other passive testing....echocardiograms, for
example, not through use of the heart monitors. IF the problem is really
severe, it will usually occur anyway, and the monitors will show it
up......but if it is subtle, the event itself (in this case the
lightheadedness) may simply be suppressed by the body.

Until this issue is settled, SCIENTIFICALLY, so far as ABX and ABC/hr and
other conscious, forced testing is concerned, then double-blind or not the
testing can rightfully be viewed with suspicion. Only after such testing
has been validated to show that it actually captures the unconscious as well
as conscious perception can it be considered validated. The elegance of the
Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require forced,
conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the test
were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
evaluative listening technique, at least.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.
I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy
diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.
Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.
As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious

True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands
of
functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and
many
of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.

Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?

Who said anything about scientific credibility? I said "not scientifically
OBVIOUS."

For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
factories, sales network, etc.

Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.

Then the failure of homeopathy to actually cure ailments, while it is a
scientific fact, it is not an obvious one. I have no problem with the test
results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or that
the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.




and do not require additional scrutiny.

Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier
transparency
is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
accepted fact.

As noted above, scientific obviousness does not require popular
acceptance. Scientific obviousness is decided by scientific reasoning
based on scientifically well established facts, not by popular vote.


If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be
the
case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven),
then
no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear
even
minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").

Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.

Depends on your definition. To me a "straight wire" is a piece of solid wire
that goes from one point in a circuit to another, while I consider speaker
wire "cable". Since it usually is longer than 6 ft, is almost always
multi-stranded, and is rarely "straight", I don't see it as qualifying.

Straight speaker wire reactance effects when speakers have low impedance
approaches much closer to hearing thresholds (in some cases we're just
there at the border[*], in many we're less than an order of magnitude
away) than contemporary amplifier signals.


[*] Not so long time ago we were both participating in a thread where the
were actual calculations presented for some speakers showing effects just
behind the border of audibility -- like more than 1dB difference at around
8kHz. If such difference were in 3-5kHz range it would be certainly on
audible side. Thanks to significant (decline in human ear resolution above
5kHz that effect is rather on the other side, but it's pretty close anyways.


The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).

Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

You're going to have to prove that assertion.

Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
for all.

"Most" is the operative word, here.

There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.

There are some kinds of distortions that aren't readily perceived by most
people AS distortion. I remember a certain French tube amp (Jolida?) that was
raved about by the audiophile community (a capricious lot, at best) for a
time. It was measured to have more than 2% THD at less than half its output,
and almost 5% just before clipping. Many said that it was the best sounding
(as in most "musical") sounding amp that they had ever heard. I myself never
heard one of these in a setting where I could tell anything for sure, but at
the hi-fi show where I heard the amp, as far as I could tell, it sounded
fine.

I've known lots of audiophiles
in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
clipping levels.

Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.

yep. I often marvel when someone pulls up beside me at a traffic light with
his car stereo blasting so loud that it is in CONSTANT clipping. The
"listener" seemed oblivious to the cacophony coming from his car stereo.

As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
started to quote their own results. How 'surprising'


Don't doubt it.


OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot
stand
to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
isn't.

But psychoacoustic studies has taken this into account.



But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.
It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).

According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the
manufacturer's
specs and is not broken.

Nope. Not at all. It's specs must show it's performance is beyond hearing
thresholds. Of course they must be there from the start.

If your claim that the thing had visible notch

Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that
one
poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.

rgds
\SK

[Fred Dag]

Originally Posted by Harry Lavo

This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point to a consideration
that to me is the potentially devastating flaw in ABX testing....the
psychological phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms, when
something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in the unconscious. And
there is a ton of work been done in the last few decades that show that
music and its emotional and biological importance to the human being is
buried very deep in the human psyche. One can surmise, therefore, that it
manifests itself in the unconscious as well as the conscious.....if you
doubt this, read "Musicophilia - Tales of Music and the Brain" by Dr. Oliver
Sacks (yes, Arny, we know you glanced at it when I last recommended it and
decided you didn't find merit in it. Nonetheless...... )

So why do I say "potentially devastating". Because if our sublest musical
discernment can arise in an unconscious state (as many audiophiles attest)
and rise flickeringly to consciousness while in a relaxed state, then the
very fact of ABX forcing a CONSCIOUS choice becomes an intervening variable.
Simply put, the test itself is invalid because what it measures isn't what
it thinks it measures.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .

Until this issue is settled, SCIENTIFICALLY, so far as ABX and ABC/hr and
other conscious, forced testing is concerned, then double-blind or not the
testing can rightfully be viewed with suspicion. Only after such testing
has been validated to show that it actually captures the unconscious as well
as conscious perception can it be considered validated. The elegance of the
Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require forced,
conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the test
were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
evaluative listening technique, at least.

A fascinating and possibly significant perspective but is leaves me wondering if audio reviewers need to be unconscious (semi-conscious?) when evaluating equipment in order to reach reliable conclusions. Maybe that's why they so frequently report getting stuck into the booze during listening sessions? We're also faced here with that old dilemma confronting us all. What is the reason we spend so much time and effort struggling to put together what each of us considers the best possible system within our individual budgets? Is our main purpose the objective evaluation of individual components in itself or the enjoyment of music and are the two states of mind mutually exclusive? There's a third class of audiophile (audiophool?) whose main purpose in fiddling around with audio gear is to make themselves appear expert on forums such as these. This particular animal ( I suspect AK is one) spends so much time posting in such places they can't have much left over to either objectively evaluate by playing ABX games or simply enjoying music for its own sake.
Remember music?

[C. Leeds]

On 4/10/2011 5:35 PM, Audio Empire wrote:


This is the last response I'll ever make to you, Mr. Leeds. You are a
pedantic contrarian who argues just to be negative and who seems unable to
follow a conversation's context.

why so angry?


I have made that vow before and have broken
it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself

But you haven't explained yourself at all. You wrote:

I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of
interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her
published name
or
by identifying the publication.

Where is the conflict? You haven't explained that at all.
You also wrote:

What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I
might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some
of my
published writings

If you identify yourself in the magazine, why wouldn't you do that here?
After all, they are the same opinions, according to you.

Sometimes, journalists protect the identity of their sources. But for a
supposed journalist to conceal his own identity is very odd. What is it
you and your editor are afraid of?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.
I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.
Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.

But it is entirely avoidable in this thread.

It's not. This is not a mathematics NG, so such at the same time wrong as
well as off topic excurions are best dealt with just that.

Good to see you
acknowledge the failure of the logic though.

Besides, no logic works without some things agreed just to be 'as is'.
Without primordial concepts (things which are not defined) and axoims
(truths which are not proved) logic does not work.


the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.
As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies.

And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.


IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
transparency.

And evidence supporting that statement?


If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
does not.

It does. If something is orders of magnitude beyond what science has
determined to be required, then it's a trivial fact that it fits what
science requires.


I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
Feel free to do so any time.

I have.


The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).
Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
The corelation is trivial.

Then show it.

I have. That you're actively opposed to just getting it is not my problem
-- it's just your attitude.

enough with the posturing.

Pot... Kettle... Black...


If

Not interested in hypotheticals.

Not hypotheticals but preconditions. Get it.

We're not discussing particular device. So the precondition is a must.
Simple precondition that device parameters are significantly beyond what
science determined to be tresholds. And science *has* determined that
tresholds.


But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.
It simply would not.

Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.

It would not. For a simple reason tha trivial mathematical inference. And
trivial mathematical inference is basic part of the scientific method.


[...]
Feel free to prove
me wrong.
There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn't
there"...
More rhetoric sans any actual science.
Again, show me the Stack!!!
OK:

Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next

It was discussed at nauseum here. Stop posturing.


Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
New York, 1994.

No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
transparency....next

Relevant information about audio. Besides im 100% sure you didn't bother
to check actual text. Stop posturing.


Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next

Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.

Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?


Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.

Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997

Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2000.

Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
2, June 1974.

Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Los
Angeles, Sept 2000.

Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.

Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
Press, 2008.

Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
"stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.

It's enough it allows to determine transparency by trivial inference.


i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.
It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.

What is wrong with the logic I have presented?

It starts with false premise that scientifically valid fact could be only
obtained by testing for just that fact. In reality only little minority of
scientifically valid facts are results of experiments. Vast, overwhelming
majority is just inferred from known laws, limits and thresholds.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.
I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy
diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.
Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.
As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands
of
functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and
many
of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.
Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?

Who said anything about scientific credibility? I said "not scientifically
OBVIOUS."

But my assertion is that the same thing could be said about scientific
obviousness.

For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
factories, sales network, etc.

Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.

Then the failure of homeopathy to actually cure ailments, while it is a
scientific fact, it is not an obvious one.

Now it is.

And, well, it was pretty obvious to anyone who analysed how it was
"constructed" and tried to scientifically understand it (to no avail). If
claimed amounts of some substance are less than smallest possible portion
of it (i.e. one molecule) then things must be wrong.

I have no problem with the test
results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or that
the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.

Once upon a time earth being round was not obvious as well as its rotation
around its axis in slightly less than 24 hours. In a grand scheme of
things it was not very long ago.


[...]
If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be
the
case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven),
then
no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear
even
minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").
Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.

Depends on your definition. To me a "straight wire" is a piece of solid wire
that goes from one point in a circuit to another, while I consider speaker
wire "cable". Since it usually is longer than 6 ft, is almost always
multi-stranded, and is rarely "straight", I don't see it as qualifying.

OK.

But then, you're considering things like speaker cables as obviously
transparent, don't you?

And yet, some effects of speaker cables are significantly stronger than
those of aplifier.


[...]
The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).

Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.
You're going to have to prove that assertion.
Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
for all.

"Most" is the operative word, here.

But "All" is just in the next statement


There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.

There are some kinds of distortions that aren't readily perceived by most
people AS distortion.

Well, 2nd harmonic is generally much harder to detect (AFAIR it's
considered undetectable just at 2% -- this is significant difference vs
0.3% or 0.1%).

I remember a certain French tube amp (Jolida?) that was
raved about by the audiophile community (a capricious lot, at best) for a
time. It was measured to have more than 2% THD at less than half its output,
and almost 5% just before clipping. Many said that it was the best sounding
(as in most "musical") sounding amp that they had ever heard. I myself never
heard one of these in a setting where I could tell anything for sure, but at
the hi-fi show where I heard the amp, as far as I could tell, it sounded
fine.

Most probably. Jolida is quite popular among audiophiles on this side of
the pond.

But then, tests of detectability didn't ask for detrimental effect but any
audible effect (difference).


I've known lots of audiophiles
in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
clipping levels.
Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.

yep. I often marvel when someone pulls up beside me at a traffic light with
his car stereo blasting so loud that it is in CONSTANT clipping.

I think the find it being "the right way". I.E. the hear the difference,
but contrary to you, me as well as other people with (at least some)
musical sensibility, they consider sound without that distortion as
uninteresting.


The
"listener" seemed oblivious to the cacophony coming from his car stereo.

I'm affraid (s)he is happy because of distortion not despite it

As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
started to quote their own results. How 'surprising'

Don't doubt it.

Never have

[...]

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 13, 12:08=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs.

But it is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows and understands the
laws of physics and chemistry (which admittedly few people understand
these days because of lousy education) that homeopathy cannot work.
Either the laws of physics we know are correct or homeopathy might
possibly work. If homeopathy works then the laws of physics and
chemistry as we know them are wrong. If you believe the laws of
physics and chemistry then it is plain and obvious that homeopathy
can't work. The laws themselves are not obvious, but one you
understand and accept them the, invalidity of homeopathy is perfectly
obvious.

I have no problem with the test
results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or t=
hat
the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.

None of these things are obvious at all. Men with minds just as good
as yours or mine believed other things for thousands of years.
Aristotle didn't believe in gravity. He believed that the entire
universe rotated around the motionless earth, and he was one of the
great geniuses of all time! Galileo couldn't accept Kepler's laws of
planetary motion, so that wasn't obvious even to a mind of that
quality. Yet he was darned near executed because he proclaimed that
the earth moved!! Only about 500 years ago. And you call that fact
"obvious"!!

The best mathematicians of enlightenment era Europe could not come up
with the law of gravity until Newton came along. They came close but
none of them could prove it because they didn't have the mathematical
tools. Even Newton didn't get it quite right and it took Einstein to
correct him hundreds of years later.

To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
Earth is round. Stand on a mountain top and it appears perfectly
obvious that the earth is generally flat. I know because I have done
so. I have flown at 35,000 feet and the curvature of the earth, which
I looked for, was in no way visible to the eye. It is only when you
examine the evidence from a scientific perspective that you can show
it isn't generally flat. I believed the Earth was round as a youth
because my parents and teachers told me it was.

I took the time later on my own to make the rather simple observations
that provide me with the evidence that the Earth is not flat on the
large scale. Did you? Or is it just "obvious" to you because your
parents and teachers told you so? Could you, without scientific
tools, prove that the surface of the earth is curved? Have you taken
the trouble?

And though I could prove for myself that the Earth's surface is curved
it is not obvious that it is a sphere. As a matter of fact, as I am
sure you already know, it isn't a sphere, it only approximates one.

But suggesting things that it took thousands of years with the best
minds of the day not believing, indeed actively denying, these things
you cite as "obvious" certainly does not fit in with any definition of
"obvious" that I have ever seen! I would never ever say that these
things are "obvious", because to do so would be to insult the greatest
minds in history, beside whom my own intellect is the size of a knat.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 7:45 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

The elegance of the
Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require
forced,
conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the
test
were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
evaluative listening technique, at least.

That's a stretch. There was no post test correlation between the
straightforward preference question and the stimuli or the
physiological response to the stimuli

One could just as easily postulate in this bizaare conundrum you've
created that the physiological responses only exist in the environment
where measurement of it is taking place. If blocking is real, then
it's converse is just as possible.

There was in fact a statistically significant difference in the quality of
sound and pleasureability ratings with and without ultrasonics, and in the
separate test, between the stimuli with and without ultrasonics. The two
"unconscious" differences were revealed and correlated; the conscious
preferences not so much.

[KH]

On 4/14/2011 8:00 AM, C. Leeds wrote:
On 4/10/2011 5:35 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

snip
I have made that vow before and have broken
it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself

But you haven't explained yourself at all. You wrote:

I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of
interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her
published name
or
by identifying the publication.

Where is the conflict? You haven't explained that at all.

The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
continued employment - as he clearly explained. Mayhap this illustrates
the pedantry to which he was referring?

Keith

[C. Leeds]

On 4/14/2011 4:14 PM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
Earth is round. Stand on a mountain top and it appears perfectly
obvious that the earth is generally flat. I know because I have done
so. I have flown at 35,000 feet and the curvature of the earth, which
I looked for, was in no way visible to the eye. It is only when you
examine the evidence from a scientific perspective that you can show
it isn't generally flat.

This is a common misnomer. It is easy to see and prove that the Earth is
round. Simply stand on the shore and watch a ship sail towards the
horizon. The top of its mast will be the last part of the ship that's
visible, as the lower part of the ship becomes obscured by the curvature
of the earth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point
to a consideration that to me is the potentially
devastating flaw in ABX testing....the psychological
phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms,
when something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in
the unconscious.

I think you just made a self-annihilating argument, Harry. ;-)

The purpose of every listening test I've ever heard of is gathering evidence
for a decision that ultmately shows up as a conscious act. IME people do
listening evaluations and make conscious choices about buying equipment
right there in the middle of the listening session! The horror! ;-)

It might help if you stoped making these arguments that are based on the
false idea that ABX is totally asymmetric with everything else that happens
in life.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 15, 6:08=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 4/14/2011 4:14 PM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
Earth is round. =A0

This is a common misnomer.

Nope.

It is easy to see and prove that the Earth is
round. Simply stand on the shore and watch a ship sail towards the
horizon. The top of its mast will be the last part of the ship that's
visible, as the lower part of the ship becomes obscured by the curvature
of the earth.

People who sailed ships knew this for thousands of years, but still it
did not become general knowledge until the last few hundred years,
though the Greeks knew 2500 years ago, nor did it seem to prove that
the earth is approximately spherical even so.

But I did not say it wasn't "easy to see and prove" that the earth was
round, I said that it wasn't "obvious", and I still say it isn't. You
cannot SEE the curvature of the earth from any place on it. You can
deduce it fairly easily but that requires a process of thought that
takes it well beyond "obvious".
Thus you seem to be beating a strawman here since you are not arguing
with my assertion that it isn't "obvious" that the Earth is round.

The fact remains that to someone standing on a high hill, or even
flying at 35,000 feet, you cannot directly see the curvature of the
Earth and the general trend appears to be a flat disk. And without
further investigation it is indeed "obvious" to the eye that it is
generally flat.

Historically, if my memory serves me, there were alternate
explanations to the disappearance of ships over the horizon, among
them refraction by the atmosphere.

There are still, by the way, societies dedicated to spreading the
world that the earth is not round, but flat. So it isn't obvious to
them.

To try to bring this back to the topic, it isn't "obvious" that well
made modern amplifiers are transparent as far as human hearing goes.
It is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO, but not "obvious".

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 14, 10:18=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob wrote:
[general snip]
A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be f=
ound
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also sta=
nd up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if y=
our
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know=
of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear dire=
ctly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But i=
s
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened =
that
a text book was published with information that later turned out =
to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid te=
st of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my p=
oint
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.
=A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? =
You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of=
a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Peri=
od.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't =
event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy d=
iploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy.
Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.

But it is entirely avoidable in this thread.

It's not.

Maybe you can't avoid argument by authority but it could be avoided by
someone who actually has the goods on the subject. That is always the
case with argument by authority. It is at best a lazy shortcut. At
worst it is a bluff used by folks who don't really have the goods to
support their assertions. It is always avoidable. But not for all
persons making arguments.


Good to see you
acknowledge the failure of the logic though.

Besides, no logic works without some things agreed just to be 'as is'.
Without primordial concepts (things which are not defined) and axoims
(truths which are not proved) logic does not work.


True but if you are using faulty axioms you do have a fundamental
problem.








the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.
As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of exist=
ence
of tooth fairies.

And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.

IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
transparency.

And evidence supporting that statement?

The mere fact that amplifers clearly don't meausre the same.


If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order =
of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gai=
n
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability)=
are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it =
does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
does not.

It does.

Then please show it. I have only asked for it over a dozen times on
this thread.

If something is orders of magnitude beyond what science has
determined to be required, then it's a trivial fact that it fits what
science requires.

Another hypothetical in place of actual substance pertaining to the
issue of amplifier transparency... Show me the goods!!!



I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
Feel free to do so any time.

I have.

No you have not. You have not cited one single scrap of peer reviewed
evidence supporting the belief in amplifier transparcy. You offered a
"stack" of publictaions that either did not relate directly to the
question and/or were not peer reviewed papers. You haven't even come
close to making your case.



The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N0. Th=
e
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human heari=
ng
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on variou=
s
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, pha=
se
detectability, etc).
Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full rang=
e
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
The corelation is trivial.

Then show it.

I have. That you're actively opposed to just getting it is not my problem
-- it's just your attitude.

Dude stop with the personal attacks please. You have not shown any
such thing. Not even close.




=A0 enough with the posturing.

Pot... Kettle... Black..

an acknowledgement of your posturing perhaps?



If

Not interested in hypotheticals.

Not hypotheticals but preconditions. Get it.

No they are hypotheticals. Preconditions would be followed by real
world data. You drop the ball right there. so we are left with empty
hypotheticals.



We're not discussing particular device. So the precondition is a must.

Indeed that we are not discussing any particular device shows that you
are dealing in hypotheticals.


Simple precondition that device parameters are significantly beyond what
science determined to be tresholds. And science *has* determined that
tresholds.

With zero reall world support cited. You are pretty much talking about
the trasnparecy of non existant amplifiers based on a corolation of
vague hypothetical circumstances and then asking us to take your word
on it that this non existant amplifier is audibly transparent using no
specific speaker system.



But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.
It simply would not.

Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.

It would not. For a simple reason tha trivial mathematical inference. And
trivial mathematical inference is basic part of the scientific method.

So it is your position that actual tesing is not part of the
scientific method? I'll keep that in mind in all future discussions
with you regarding science.



[...]

Feel free to prove
me wrong.
There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves a=
nd
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your =
logic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science=
isn't
there"...
More rhetoric sans any actual science.
Again, show me the Stack!!!
OK:

Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next

It was discussed at nauseum here. Stop posturing.

What posturing? I am stating a fact about your alleged stack of peer
reviewed evidence in support of the belief in amplifier transparency.
That is an automatic disqualifier.




Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Book=
s,
New York, 1994.

No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
transparency....next

Relevant information about audio. Besides im 100% sure you didn't bother
to check actual text. Stop posturing.

Dude I own the book. Bet you didn't see that coming. LOL so who is
posturing here? No there is no relevant information in that book
(which is not a peer reviewed scientific publication) in support of
the belief of amplifier transparency. NONE. that you would try to slip
this in the "stack" smacks of pure desperation. Ironically you cited
other publications that were even less relevant. Your bluff has been
called. surprise!!!








=A0 Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next

LOL you didn't even try to defend that one.


Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-7=
28.

Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?

=A0 Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2=
nd
edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.

Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997

Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, =
New
York, 2000.

Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 =
No.
2, June 1974.

Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers an=
d
Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv.,=
Los
Angeles, Sept 2000.

Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio En=
g.
Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.

Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
Press, 2008.

Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
"stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.

It's enough it allows to determine transparency by trivial inference.

Prove it. As of now you have cited no speicifc evidence from any peer
reviewed studies much less made any corolation with human thresholds
of hearing. You have offered a "stack" of irrelevant publications most
of which are not peer reviewed and offer no evidence one way or
another in support of the belief of amplifier transparency.



i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested i=
n
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring m=
e
into the subject. =A0 That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.
It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.

What is wrong with the logic I have presented?

It starts with false premise that scientifically valid fact could be only
obtained by testing for just that fact.

I never made that claim. So let me ask again what is wrong with the
logic **I** have presneted? Not interested in your misrepresentations
of my positions. You might want to provide quotes in context so as to
not misrepresent my arguments.

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire claims to write for an audio magazine that won't allow him
to identify it or himself here because of a supposed "conflict of
interest." I've been asking where the conflict of interest is.

On 4/14/2011 9:20 PM, KH wrote:

The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
continued employment - as he clearly explained.

That's circular reasoning. It's like saying, "That person is fat because
he is overweight."

I understand that there is a supposed claim of conflict of interest. I'm
asking: what is the conflict? What would be the negative consequence of
a journalist identifying himself in this group? Remember, Audio Empire
also said:

What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
now, wouldn't they?

The audiophile press often gets a bad rap in this group, and I usually
defend the press. But this is very weird. Journalists rarely invoke
anonymity for themselves. Good journalists are publicly responsible for
what they write. It's part of the job. But you can't be responsible if
you insist on anonymity.

Or, as I've mentioned, it's possible Empire is just a crank writing from
his parents' basement.



[ Some time ago, the moderators decided not to accept articles from
Audio Empire until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that
he works for. Apart from that, let us not harass him personally. A
discussion of journalistic ethics specifically relating to high-end
audio is on-topic. -- dsr ]

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 13, 4:53=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Scott, you seem to think that *logic according to Scott* is some kind of
gold standard that we all need to honor. All one needs to do is look at y=
our
audio system to see that logic according to Scott leads to many dramatic
inefficiencies.


Wow I ask for science to support your assertion of scientific validity
and you offer sour grapes over my superior high end system as a device
for a personal attack against me. that is rich. Not sure how this
comment passes moderation. Clearly it offers no value to the
discussion and is pure ad hominem. This gets through despite my clear
request that this not be about me personally. Kinda reflects pretty
poorly on the forum itself.


Amplifier transparency can be demonstrated so easily that it simply isn't
worth the peer reviewed paper that you demand. It is simply a part of lif=
e
that was settled both practically and theorectically over 20 years ago, a=
nd
you haven't caught up.

More posturing in place of actual science. Clearly you have nothing to
offer in the way of peer reviewed evidence to support the assertion of
amplifier transparency. so much for that assertion.



So, you're caught on a treadmill of eternal upgrades. Beem there, done th=
at
but haven't wasted my life with that (except for demonstration purposes) =
for
over 30 years.

I don't think you really want to go down that path Arny. This isn't a
contest about what you and I have done with our lives over the past
thirty years. Again I am not interested in your misguided opinions
about me. They have no place in any discussion of the scientific
support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So for the last time
lets cut the garbage and stick with audio. More specifically the
actual scientific support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So
far the some total is zero.

Please excuse the lack of audio content in this post but it is a
response to a post that lacks audio content and makes very ugly
personal attacks against my character.


[ This thread is done, as it no longer contains any
audio-related content. Please do not reply. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Apr 14, 10:18 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:

IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of
amplifier transparency.

As usual Scott, where is the peer-reviewed article(s) to support that
unfounded and easy-to disprove assertion?

And evidence supporting that statement?

The mere fact that amplifiers clearly don't measure the
same.

There is more than a little evidence showing that different measurements
don't necessarily equal different sound. Some of the oldest is found in the
Fletcher-Munson curves.

Once the intensity of a sound at a certain frequency drops below a certain
level, it not audible. It may still have an infinite number of different
intensities and as long as they are all below the threshold, they can't be
heard. Therefore there is ancient ( 60 years old) peer-reviewed evidence
that measures different does not necessarily mean sounds different.

There is more than a little evidence (It is in the Clark JAES
(Peer-reviewed) ABX article), that equipment whose frequency response
measures different but is otherwise similar enough does not sound
different.

The recent JAES article that shows that a 16/44 link can be interposed in an
excellent playback system with a so-called high resolution source (DVD-A,
SACD) without detection shows that the changes in measured performance
caused by the 16/44 link (which are many!) has no audible effect.

So there you go Scott - 3 peer reviewed papers, one 60 years old, one 30
years old and one 3 years old, that falsify your claim. They have all stood
the test of time.

Dismiss that!

[KH]

On 4/16/2011 6:56 PM, C. Leeds wrote:
Audio Empire claims to write for an audio magazine that won't allow him
to identify it or himself here because of a supposed "conflict of
interest." I've been asking where the conflict of interest is.

On 4/14/2011 9:20 PM, KH wrote:

The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
continued employment - as he clearly explained.

That's circular reasoning. It's like saying, "That person is fat because
he is overweight."

I understand that there is a supposed claim of conflict of interest. I'm
asking: what is the conflict? What would be the negative consequence of
a journalist identifying himself in this group? Remember, Audio Empire
also said:


Well...in a nutshell, no that is not circular. You asked him to explain
*himself*. He did. You are asking him now to explain the thought
process of his editor - something none of us can do with certainty - and
impugning his veracity in the same breath.

Now, he could well be a crank writing from a cave for all the personal
knowledge I have about him. But, after having given you an answer to
your original question, and then vowing no further responses to you
would be forthcoming, your demand that he now expound on another persons
motives has the unmistakable scent of troll wafting about it.

snip

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 16, 6:57=A0pm, Scott wrote:
More specifically the
actual scientific support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So
far the some total is zero.


I find these debates on amplifier transparency a bit tedious as they
usually fail to identify some basic tenants that amps must meet to be
"transparent".

I think if the basic requirements for "transparency" were first listed
(a list you may very well agree upon) then you may even agree that
there are many amps on the market that are intentionally not
"transparent" by their designers.

I also find it difficult to define a test for amplifier transparency
as any test would have to include speakers which require signal
amplification to operate and there is no easily established baseline
(i.e, no amp) to compare to with an amp to declare transparency. Only
options that comes to mind is some kind of cascade test such as has
been done with D/A A/D chains but that only shows transparency in the
case of a preceding amplification which means subsequent amp
signatures are transparent only after the signal has been imprinted
with an amp signature and without taking for granted that doesn't
influence the outcome, I don't see how a pure test for transparency
can be constructed.

This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook the possibility that
different loads MIGHT affect different amplifiers in different ways. Also,
anybody who thinks that different amplifiers don't handle low bass in vastly
different ways isn't really paying attention. Some amps render bass less well
controlled than others, and with really wide-range speakers with a good
really low bottom end, some amps seem not to be as flat wrt power response as
do some others. This is especially true of tube amps, where output
transformer design greatly affects low frequency performance, but I've also
heard this effect with solid-state amps.

Even if you could establish transparency that would only be relevant
for that amp/speaker combination as there are obvious interactions
that would disallow extrapolation to another combination so I don't
see any significance of such a test.

Again, you make a good point. differences in damping factor alone can account
for amps sounding a bit different on a single loudspeaker system.

Amplification is just one small part of a rather long chain of steps
in music reproduction and establishing transparency or lack thereof in
that one small step isn't particularly meaningful to me in the final
outcome.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I use my system to listen to music,
and the idea of transparency is of small concern to the "listening" me. What
is important, OTOH, is the musicality of the complete ensemble. I feel that
the interest in music and the sound of music is at the core of high-end
audio. Without that musical interest, the sound and the pursuit of it becomes
largely irrelevant, as do all the listening and measuring tests that one
could possibly come-up with. A transparent system that makes music sound
unmusical is of little use to anyone who's interest is the MUSIC and not some
form of uber-neutrality for neutrality's sake. Unfortunately, I see a lot of
the latter being championed here. IOW, if "transparency" robs the performance
of it's life and soul, then I say the hell with it. Give me amps that are
colored (in the right way, of course) any day of the week. 8^)