Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial
thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the differences are way outside the realm of hearing. (I am paraphrasing in a huge way here) http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...han-winer.html http://tinyurl.com/yjugl7n His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks wrapped around line cords etc. That's a separate part of the thread. The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters, pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees the name plates on the gear. Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV. Discussion? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound,aus.hi-fi
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
wrote in message There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the differences are way outside the realm of hearing. Discussion? Ethan Winer's a hack. End of discussion. No surprise, this post is by the Buzzardnews forger/imposter. The guy is just trying to make trouble for everybody - let him suffer in silence. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
On Feb 22, 1:02 am, M0she_ wrote:
(I am paraphrasing in a huge way here) Actually, you nailed it perfectly. :-) --Ethan |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"M0she_" wrote in message
There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the differences are way outside the realm of hearing. (I am paraphrasing in a huge way here) http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...han-winer.html http://tinyurl.com/yjugl7n The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters, pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees the name plates on the gear. There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous improvement in the price/performance of audio hardware, digital audio hardware, and especially converters. Back in the late 1990s people (like me) happily paid about $400 for a Turtle Beach Pinnacle with 2 channels that were barely CD quality, had unbalanced analog I/O, etc., etc. Probably the value leader in modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to 24/96 in and out for under $200, and performs well in excess of CD quality. Or, there is the Delta 24/192 with 110 dB dynamic range, truely balanced I/O, etc., etc. The better onboard interfaces on commodity PC system boards have up to 8 outputs that are near CD quality for essentially zero incremental cost. Furthermore, A - D conversion has migrated out of the computer and into consoles and mic preamps. For example, the Beheringer ADA8000 has 8 fully balanced mic/line inputs and 8 line outputs with dual 8 channel digital interface/light pipe multiplexers (in and out) for under $250. There are a number of small consoles under $500 with computer digital outputs (FW and USB) for all or most mic channels. The interesting question is not whether or not the M-Audio and Behringer equipment I mentioned is adequate for audio production, but whether or not there is an audible benefit associated with fancier, higher-priced gear that can cost actually thousands of dollars per channel. Or, to back off a notch, is there even an audible difference between an ADA 8000 @ $250, or a M-Audio Octane at more than twice the price? IOW, what has happened to the Apogee/Millenia market? Me, I'm spending my money on microphones, acoustics treatments and the like. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Probably the value leader in modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to 24/96 in and out for under $200, I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a new computer is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot they require. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Probably the value leader in modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to 24/96 in and out for under $200, I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a new computer is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot they require. I've been installing new Dell computers for a number of clients in the past few weeks. Every one still has one or two traditional PCI slots. If you check current on-the-shelf and web retailer desktop PC out, you will find that the typical desktop PC for early 2010 has at least 2 PCI slots, one narrow PCI-E slot and one wide PCI-E slot. But the point is well-taken that if you want to run 32 channels with Delta 1010LTs, you either find a legacy PC, or you get something intended for industrial use. Just about everything on the shelf at Staples won't do the job. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:30:47 -0800 (PST), Ethan Winer wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:02 am, M0she_ wrote: (I am paraphrasing in a huge way here) Actually, you nailed it perfectly. :-) --Ethan Thanks Ethan! FWIW I downloaded your files and listened along with the video and I don't hear any difference in the comparisons until the intended butchering of the files reaches a crazy level. Of course I am not listening in a $200k or more studio nor is my gear pristine. I have RME and Delta cards, JBL 6328 and Event ASP8 monitors but even my Genelec 8040 which I just sold gave me similar results. I don't consider myself a golden eared person, not by a long shot however I have over the years heard differences in gear but not having the technical specs handy or better yet performance measurements I can't be sure what the differences were attributed to. I think you've made people think and in the process have ruffled more than a few feathers. I for one would love to see a double blind, controlled listening comparison between some of the very high end gear and some not so high end gear and see if people really can hear a difference. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Probably the value leader in modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to 24/96 in and out for under $200, I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a new computer is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot they require. My brand new p55 motherboard has 3 PCI slots. Motherboards without PCI slots are the exception. Glenn D. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
In article ,
M0she_ wrote: His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks wrapped around line cords etc. That's a separate part of the thread. The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters, pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees the name plates on the gear. Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV. Don't drag me into any discussions about high-end audiophoolery. I'm going to tell you right up front that my Klipsch Cornwalls are connected to the amplifier through 16-guage copper zip cord. And they are going to stay that way. And I don't own any green felt pens, either. The late Harry Olson brought out the issues of psychoacoustics in electronic audio 60-70 years ago. But that's just a follow-on to hot wars about string length scale among piano makers, and pipe scale and wind chest design among pipe organ builders. The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ. Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers. All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop lists. Hank |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Hank wrote:
In article , M0she_ wrote: His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks wrapped around line cords etc. That's a separate part of the thread. The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters, pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees the name plates on the gear. Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV. Don't drag me into any discussions about high-end audiophoolery. I'm going to tell you right up front that my Klipsch Cornwalls are connected to the amplifier through 16-guage copper zip cord. And they are going to stay that way. So are my KEf's in my home system. Your point? And I don't own any green felt pens, either. I do. Never used one on a CD though. The late Harry Olson brought out the issues of psychoacoustics in electronic audio 60-70 years ago. But that's just a follow-on to hot wars about string length scale among piano makers, and pipe scale and wind chest design among pipe organ builders. Organ builders are a very "different" breed. I grew up a person whose father is one of the last of the great ones and have heard most of the war stories over the years. Very passionate people and possibly some of the last true craftsman. The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ. Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers. Couldn't tell ya as I prefer to play the instrument rather than analyze it much like I prefer to transfer vinyl to digital medium by listening, critiquing and experimenting rather than analyzing every aspect of why or why not something will or will not work. If I did that, nothing would ever get done. It's a fairly easy concept with today's software like Soundforge, Wavelab, Diamond or Cedar if you will. The time consuming part is manually editing severe clicks/pops. All this reminds me of the story of the scientist who via advanced mathematics created the perfect loudspeaker system. He spent years, analyzing the data, pouring over technical manuals and calculating all the Thiele Small parameters via his slide rule. After half a life's work, he had arrived at the scientifically "perfect" loud speaker and submitted his thesis to all the various science magazines such as Scientific American. The other scientists in the industry praised him and he became an instant celebrity in the scientific community. Until one day when he got a call from a colleague who informed him that there was a major problem with his theories. Thinking maybe he had just made a minor calculation error, he asked his colleague what this problem was related to and the colleague told him that a lowly music enthusiast, amateur "scientist" had actually built one of these speakers from the calculations and it sounded awful. Heresy! cried the celebrity scientist who had stunned the world. The music enthusiast must have done something wrong. The colleague said, well that is what we thought so a couple of us scientists built one of your speakers as well and it too sounds awful. You *did* build a prototype to test your calculations, right? The celebrity scientist stubbornly objected and said "why should I have to do that, the math is all there, the theory is all there and it should be perfect! The moral of the story is sometimes it gets difficult to see the forest for the trees. All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop lists. Hank |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial thread going on inwww.gearslutz.comwhere Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the differences are way outside the realm of hearing. thanks Ethan.. I agree with your comments and I am glad to see someone in the pro audio community verbalize them explicitly.. audio transparency can be characterized by FOUR MEASURABLE QUANTIFIABLE parameters... thanks Mark |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:21:36 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial thread going on inwww.gearslutz.comwhere Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the differences are way outside the realm of hearing. thanks Ethan.. I agree with your comments and I am glad to see someone in the pro audio community verbalize them explicitly.. audio transparency can be characterized by FOUR MEASURABLE QUANTIFIABLE parameters... thanks Mark Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's wallet and boosting one's ego. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's wallet and boosting one's ego.- -then there will be five,... But so far there is no evidence that we are missing anything.... Any gear that the measurements indicate should be transparent , are transparent in double blind tests... What is more interesting to think about is measuring and characterizing the real audible differences between a Stradivarius and a Yamaha. Mark |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:10:22 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's wallet and boosting one's ego.- -then there will be five,... But so far there is no evidence that we are missing anything.... Any gear that the measurements indicate should be transparent , are transparent in double blind tests... That's how I feel and I have yet to see a double blind test where gear that measures the same can be differentiated in a statistically significant manner. It's the age old debate. What is more interesting to think about is measuring and characterizing the real audible differences between a Stradivarius and a Yamaha. There was just a special on History Channel that put forth the theory that the reason a Stradivarious sounds superior is because the "Little Ice Age" slowed the growth of the trees and caused the wood of that era to be denser. They used tree ring analysis to reach the conclusion. Interesting. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"M0she_" wrote in message
Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? The devil is in the details. I'll answer the question with another question. How many orthogonal (perpendicular or non-interacting) parameters are required to uniquely describe a point in 3 dimensional space? The answer is of course 3. However, if you remove the requirements that the parameters be orthogonal, then there can be any number of parameters that you like greater than 3. However, then there will be many different sets of parameters that describe the same point. If you pick other orthogonal parameter systems, then they are like coordinate systems that are rotated from the first one you picked. There is nothing new under the sun. If we move on to audio, we observe that any single audio signal is completely described by pairs of (again orthogonal) numbers, being a time and the amplitude that corresponds to that time. Since we are interested in characterizing errors in audio signals, the question becomes how many unique different ways can an audio signal be in error? There are any number of orthogonal or non-interacting sets of three ways that the signal can be in error: The most common sets of non-interacting errors is that an interfering signal can be added, the signal can have the wrong amplitude, and/or the signal can have the wrong shape. Each of these can be thought of as being orthogonal and non-interferring with each other in the sense that you can add or subtract any one of these kinds of error without changing the signal in any other way. IOW, you can add an interferring signal without changing the size or shape of the basic signal, you can change the shape of the signal without changing its size, and you can change its size without changing its shape. There are no other non-interacting ways that a signal can be in error once you pick these particular three kinds of error. There are other ways to characterize errors in the signal, but they are in some sense equivalent, or other combinations of these three. These three seem to be natural and intuitive to us. If we picked some other orthogonal ways to characterize the signal, all we would do is have something that is less intuitive for us. There would be no actual new information about errors in the signal. The three kinds of signal error that I described can also be characterized by measurements. The addition of an interferring signal can be measured as SNR or dynamic range. Incorrect amplitude is characterized as frequency and phase distortion. Incorrect shapes can be characterized by nonlinear distortion, which includes harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, and phase or frequency modulation distortion. That's it. There is nothing new under the sun. The basic math of signal analysis says that once you have nailed down these three basic error parameters relating to interferring signals, amplitude error, and shape error, there can be no others that aren't somehow already covered by these three. So there can't be a parameter that hasn't been discovered yet, given that you are dealing with audio signals that are described by time and amplitude. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"M0she_" wrote in message
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:10:22 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote: What is more interesting to think about is measuring and characterizing the real audible differences between a Stradivarius and a Yamaha. There was just a special on History Channel that put forth the theory that the reason a Stradivarious sounds superior is because the "Little Ice Age" slowed the growth of the trees and caused the wood of that era to be denser. The slow growth and added density is entirely measurable by means that have been known for decades. The different sound quality of different violins can be measured by recording the various violins playing the same notes, and analyzing the recording by well-known means. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Hank" wrote ...
The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ. Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers. All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop lists. I put online my photo-tour of the Reiger factory (back in 1987 when they were in Austria, still split in half by the Iron Curtain). I got a significant amount of flack for suggesting that only the disreputable theatre organ builders did such dastardly things as nicking the lips of the pipes. http://www.rcrowley.com/Rieger/Tour.htm I believe the company has since re-joined its other branch of the family in the former East Germany (or something like that?) |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:04:34 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
"M0she_" wrote in message Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? The devil is in the details. I'll answer the question with another question. How many orthogonal (perpendicular or non-interacting) parameters are required to uniquely describe a point in 3 dimensional space? snip---to save bandwidth What a great analysis Arny! I've saved your post to use as a reference in the future! Thank you! I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference in measurement. I am not a golden eared person and never have been however I am particularly sensitive to the stereo image and placement of instruments, vocals etc within that electronic sound stage. For some strange reason I can pick up flaws in recordings where the sound stage has been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes etc. As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on occasion but I've always believed that what I was hearing was due to a difference in the specs of the units being compared. I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:52:52 -0800, Richard Crowley wrote:
"Hank" wrote ... The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ. Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers. All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop lists. I put online my photo-tour of the Reiger factory (back in 1987 when they were in Austria, still split in half by the Iron Curtain). I got a significant amount of flack for suggesting that only the disreputable theatre organ builders did such dastardly things as nicking the lips of the pipes. http://www.rcrowley.com/Rieger/Tour.htm I believe the company has since re-joined its other branch of the family in the former East Germany (or something like that?) Fascinating! I sent that link to my friend whose father was an organ builder, now long retired. I'm sure he will enjoy it! |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"M0she_" wrote in message
I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference in measurement. While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the performance of the audio gear that he "tested". I am not a golden eared person and never have been however I am particularly sensitive to the stereo image and placement of instruments, vocals etc within that electronic sound stage. For some strange reason I can pick up flaws in recordings where the sound stage has been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes etc. When you are micing and mixing and doing other kinds of typical audio production, it is pretty easy to screw up or at least change the imaging or soundstage. Ditto for speakers and rooms. And it is not improbable that analog recording/playback can screw them up as well. OTOH, straight-up digital recording, mic preamps, power amps and the like are unlikely to harm imaging, other than if someone messes with channel gain or balance. As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on occasion but I've always believed that what I was hearing was due to a difference in the specs of the units being compared. In addition to specs, there are a number of slips and falls due to interfacing, that would show up in measurements, were they done on site and as-used. I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages If you read the stuff Ethan has written and had published over the years, he hasn't changed much and he has been wrong about very little, if anything. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
On Feb 23, 12:56 pm, M0she_ wrote:
what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? If there was something more than the known four parameters, then some "residue" would have been revealed by now in a null test. That's the beauty of a null test, it shows all differences between two audio streams or files, even if you don't know what to look for! --Ethan |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
On Feb 23, 2:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The different sound quality of different violins can be measured by recording the various violins playing the same notes, and analyzing the recording by well-known means. Another way to measure a violin (or cello etc) is to separate the front and back plates from the body, and put them on a shaker table with party glitter sprinkles as shown he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9swU5J3gLI Carleen Hutchins is a famous luthier who did pioneering research in the 1970s. She was loaned several Strad violins and allowed to take them apart. (Imagine that!) Then she published an article in Scientific American (October 1981 issue) with the results. My friends Bob and Deena Spear are students of Carleen, and they make fine new instruments using the same techniques to measure and fine tune the plates: http://www.ethanwiner.com/spear.html Unlike the short YouTube video above which uses a fixed frequency, the sine wave is usually swept to find the various resonances, then allowed to settle as shown. This is a fascinating subject, and my own cello was regraduated (years ago, before I bought it) by another student of Hutchins using the same techniques. --Ethan |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"M0she_" wrote in message I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference in measurement. While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the performance of the audio gear that he "tested". See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of everything that went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies. If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure the same, this is an indication that you're not doing the right measurements and you need to go back up and come up with a metric that explains the audible differences. Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. Unfortunately THIS philosophy not only resulted in a lot of bad sounding designs that had great 1970s measurements, but it also resulted in the extreme reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_ measurements. But Hirsch and his crowd were first and basically provoked their reaction. Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to make sure your measurements are relevant. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators" improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if the differences are real or just imagined. --Ethan |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
Ethan Winer wrote:
Carleen Hutchins is a famous luthier who did pioneering research in the 1970s. She was loaned several Strad violins and allowed to take them apart. (Imagine that!) Then she published an article in Scientific American (October 1981 issue) with the results. Was that the article that discussed the possibility that Strad was chemically treating his wood? An instrument maker friend of mine read that and tried using a lye solution to leech moisture out of some wood that he used as a dulcimer top. It gave it a kind of flamenco guitar quality that was interesting. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "M0she_" wrote in message I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference in measurement. While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the performance of the audio gear that he "tested". See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of everything that went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies. Change "everything" to "many things" , and we might agree. ;-) If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure the same, this is an indication that you're not doing the right measurements and you need to go back up and come up with a metric that explains the audible differences. Many times the perception that things don't sound the same actually comes from poor quality subjective testing. I'm not talking about just blinding, but also the simple matter of holding all relevant operational parameters similar enough that they don't explain the observed differences. For example, anyone show me someone who does +/- 0.1 dB level matched, time synched listening tests on just about *any* audio production gear, and I'll show you a pleasantly surprised face. ;-) Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. IME Julian was not a cruel, highly emotional person. This can't be said about many of his radical subjectivist detractors (aside from the true gentlemen on this forum, of course. ;-) ) IOW Julian didn't often belittle the people he disagreed with, if ever. He was flamed quite a bit. Simple belittling would be among the better treatment he received from many of the consumer golden eared persuasion. :-( Demonizing Hirsch is common to this day. but it also resulted in the extreme reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_ measurements. I personally questioned Julian to his face about the relatively simplistic measurements he did back in the day. He seemed to go the AP System 1 route when the HP computerized FFT-based measurement gear of the day would have yielded more useful information if analyzed correctly. Julian's background was military electronics which is an area where I also have some err, professional experience. But Hirsch and his crowd were first and basically provoked their reaction. IMO & IME many of the radical subjectivists who flamed Julian were often already provoked by their own desire for fun and profit. Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to make sure your measurements are relevant. +1, with a bullet. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?
Ethan Winer wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators" improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if the differences are real or just imagined. Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. I have heard a lot of things that I wouldn't have expected to hear, and some of them turned out to make sense when investigated more carefully and some didn't. For example... those cable elevators... do they actually change the coupling of the speaker to the floor through a heavy cable? Does the speaker have to be propped back a couple degrees to make them fit? Those side-effects can change the sound a lot and sometimes that's a good thing. I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard, and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input tubes.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Ethan Winer wrote: On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Been there, done that. Same for someone who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators" improved the sound. By the time I saw that fad manifest itself right before my face I wasn't so much into tilting at windmills. All claims of sound differences are not real. Strictly speaking they are real to the claimants if they are sincere. What's lacking is general applicability and reliability. So in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if the differences are real or just imagined. There are some "hot" words in there that may not help our cause a lot. Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. We would go crazy trying to do everybody's testing for them. I have heard a lot of things that I wouldn't have expected to hear, and some of them turned out to make sense when investigated more carefully and some didn't. For example... those cable elevators... do they actually change the coupling of the speaker to the floor through a heavy cable? If the cable is big enough to be acoustically signfiicant, is it still really a cable? Does the speaker have to be propped back a couple degrees to make them fit? No. Those side-effects can change the sound a lot and sometimes that's a good thing. I don't know of anyway that people are helped by increasing their belief in audio placeboes. I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. woo-woo-woo-woo! A single-blind test showed it sounded better. A single blind test is a DBT that is defective. Wise people don't go there, ever since Clever Hans back in the early 1800s. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard, and that did the same thing.... Just because it is cheap doesn't mean it is right. now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input tubes.... --scott Oh, tubes! Well getting rid of the microphonc tubes was a good idea, but the best way to do that involves a bit of modernization... |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:26:36 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
"M0she_" wrote in message I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference in measurement. While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the performance of the audio gear that he "tested". True! I've been a fan of his for many years, but when I took exception it was generally in his comments section where he gave personal opinons on the gear he happened to be testing. I remember one pet peeve of his was phono pre-amp overload rating and he clobbered more than few pieces of gear even though the overload rating was way above what cartridges could produce even when running test disks desgined to max out the output. I didn't always agree with him on that. I am not a golden eared person and never have been however I am particularly sensitive to the stereo image and placement of instruments, vocals etc within that electronic sound stage. For some strange reason I can pick up flaws in recordings where the sound stage has been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes etc. When you are micing and mixing and doing other kinds of typical audio production, it is pretty easy to screw up or at least change the imaging or soundstage. Ditto for speakers and rooms. And it is not improbable that analog recording/playback can screw them up as well. OTOH, straight-up digital recording, mic preamps, power amps and the like are unlikely to harm imaging, other than if someone messes with channel gain or balance. WRT to analog, like tape, it seems very common in terms of the tape lifting off the heads and one channel "wavering". I hear it in many tunes. Then of course there are editing problems. As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on occasion but I've always believed that what I was hearing was due to a difference in the specs of the units being compared. In addition to specs, there are a number of slips and falls due to interfacing, that would show up in measurements, were they done on site and as-used. Yes. I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages If you read the stuff Ethan has written and had published over the years, he hasn't changed much and he has been wrong about very little, if anything. Yea, I like Ethan and I like cats as well |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
I have to side with Scott on this. While I am of the opinion that any audio artifact can be quantized, I am also of the opinion that there is a missing link in Ethan and Arny's argument: namely, that quantizing has been done properly. As with Scott, your statement fails on the grounds that you seem to be too sure of yourself. I would agree with the statement that the stated missing link *may* exist in any particular situation. Whether the link is missing or not is at least potentially knowable. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On 24 Feb 2010 09:16:20 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of everything that went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies. If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure the same, this is an indication that you're not doing the right measurements and you need to go back up and come up with a metric that explains the audible differences. I don't disagree with that. Did Julian take that POV? IOW from the "sound different" aspect, or did he just dismiss it? Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I think you have to work within the technology available at the time. I don't belittle people who claim to hear differences etc however I would welcome them to consistently demonstrate this in a controlled setting. Unfortunately THIS philosophy not only resulted in a lot of bad sounding designs that had great 1970s measurements, but it also resulted in the extreme reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_ measurements. But Hirsch and his crowd were first and basically provoked their reaction. Those were volatile times! I remember the "power wars" where you needed a hand truck just to take home your latest receiver! As I recall, and I may be wrong, I think Sansui won the war Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to make sure your measurements are relevant. I think we all agree to this. See my other post about the mathematically correct loudspeaker etc in the vinyl thread. --scott |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard, and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input tubes.... --scott Key word "tubes". Do you think you would have heard a difference if this was a high quality solid state unit? |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), Ethan Winer wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:56 pm, M0she_ wrote: what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet? If there was something more than the known four parameters, then some "residue" would have been revealed by now in a null test. That's the beauty of a null test, it shows all differences between two audio streams or files, even if you don't know what to look for! --Ethan Yea I've done some informal experiments like that comparing different DAW software to see if one influences the sound more than another. I guess I am looking for fairy dust |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Ethan Winer wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators" improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if the differences are real or just imagined. Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. But it is the people who claim to HEAR differences from magic cable and green markers and wooden knobs who ALSO wave their hands and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. THAT is why I believe it isn't that terribly disasterous to simply ignore it/them. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"M0she_" wrote in message
On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard, and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input tubes.... --scott Key word "tubes". Do you think you would have heard a difference if this was a high quality solid state unit? Absence of microphonics. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
Any signal carrying wire, or unbypassed other wire, creates an electrical differential as the distance between the wire and a ground plane changes. This is the basic principle of condenser microphones. However, typically said voltage is typically so small as to be difficult or impossible to measure, let alone hear. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
Julian Hirsch was a man of his times. By today's standards, the amplifiers he looked at in the 70's were rather poor. Hirsch reviewed amps for Stereo Review until 1988. By then amplifiers with very low distortion were commonly available. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
M0she_ wrote:
On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard, and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input tubes.... Key word "tubes". Do you think you would have heard a difference if this was a high quality solid state unit? Probably not... and now with input tubes that are better-supported internally, I don't hear a difference with my existing amp any more. But if I _did_ hear a difference with a high quality solid state unit, I'd start tapping around with a pencil looking for a film cap that was microphonic or a solder joint with a similar problem. The point is... I _did_ hear something... it's just that the cool gadget was glossing over another problem that really needed to be fixed rather than providing a real system benefit. Also... just because you hear a difference in a double-blind test doesn't mean that the difference is an _improvement_ at all. I can rig a test to make people pick a cassette dub over an original signal. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote... Ethan Winer wrote: (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored and people who heard them should be belittled. I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators" improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if the differences are real or just imagined. Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. But it is the people who claim to HEAR differences from magic cable and green markers and wooden knobs who ALSO wave their hands and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. THAT is why I believe it isn't that terribly disasterous to simply ignore it/them. And that, I think is a failing, because it may cause you to miss something that really _is_ audible. You have to listen and you have to test. Yes, there are crazy people on both sides of the aisle. My only point is that Julian and crew started the craziness and the crazy people on the other side appeared as a reaction to his craziness. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message m Any signal carrying wire, or unbypassed other wire, creates an electrical differential as the distance between the wire and a ground plane changes. This is the basic principle of condenser microphones. However, typically said voltage is typically so small as to be difficult or impossible to measure, let alone hear. Except in a high-Z world, where triboelectric noise becomes a real problem in things like guitar cables. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Interesting digital recording differences | High End Audio | |||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard | High End Audio | |||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard | High End Audio | |||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard] | High End Audio | |||
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard | High End Audio |