| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
news:ch0Wb.14852$032.63396@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message news:3xUVb.11981$032.40528@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: 1) Amp 1, transistor, made by one of the leading names in the industry. Flat constricted sound, grainy on top, a bit murky in upper bass. Imaging and sound totally unrealistic. 2) Amp 2, transistor, made by another leading name in industry. Beautiful imaging, soundstages out beyond speakers, instruments and voices had a dimensional 3D quality usually associated with tubes. Yet not quite right, as the voices and instruments sounded like they were wrapped in gold foil. The were 3D but all you heard was the "surface" of the image...there didn't seem to be depth or weight. 3) Amp 3, tube. Same beautiful imaging, soundstage, dimensionality. Only now the 3D images were fleshed out and palpable. You literally felt you could reach out and touch the performers. Now, not a *thing* had changed except those amps. Nor was I the only one who could hear it. My female partner at the time walked into my listening sessions and accurately caught/described the character of the sound of each with no prompting from me. There is more to it than speakers, Chung. Maybe you missed the part about competent? Examples of things that can change imaging: (a) mismatches in frequency response between L and R channels, (b) mistracking of gain between L and R channels as volume control is adjusted, (c) mismatches in L/R output impedances that are significantly large (like those found in SET's), (d) mismatches of phono-equalization between L/R channels, (e) balance control not centered, (f) loudness contour mismatches between L/R channels, and (g) any gross frequency response errors or insufficient S/N (found in SET's, e.g.). These were power amps, Chung Which of the above apply. All of them, except (d), (e) and (f) apply to power amps, if they are not properly designed. Yes, but less likely. How many "unbalanced and defective" power amps have you experienced in your day. They are relatively simple circuits. Plus, they were from large and respected companies, not boutiques. Incompetence is not limited to boutiques. So what do you think caused the imaging differences? No, but it is much less likely. Were you listening at equal loudness levels? Yes There is no examples that I can found of imaging differences caused by cables or interconnects, unless they are grossly defective. I do not recall that Mike was talking about wires in this thread. A lot of the DBT's he took as producing negative results were on cables. You think he believes that cables do not cause imaging differences? I don't know whether he does or does not. I've do not recall hearing him assert that here. In any event, if those differences are so real and "palpable" in your sighted testing that your female partner at the time had no trouble identifying them, you think you have trouble differentiating them in a DBT? Would you still need extensive evaluative sessions before you can compare? If a DBT could prove to reveal these types of differences (which a control test is needed for), then I'm sure one would reveal these differences. By proof you mean agreement with sighted testing? So you are saying if both sighted and blind tests show imaging differences, then you think DBT can show imaging differences? Hmmm, you cover all the bases here  .Please, Chung. I've spelled out my blind test proposal, which you were the first to respond to. It was a double-blind test, evaluative test. I can only gather that in your rush to respond you didn't both to absorb/think about what I was really proposing. Mike thinks a DBT would not; I honestly don't know. He may be right. What!!! Your female partner (who was implied to be not an audiophile) could hear the palpable differences immediately without any prompt from you, and you think you may not be able to identity them, blind? This is an absolutely amazing admission from a subjectivist. You are saying that once we don't tell you what you are listening to, your hearing ability as an audiophile is much worse than the average person! Nope, I'm saying I don't know how much (because a control test has never been done) going into comparative mode versus evaluative mode would affect it. |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
snip She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) So, you consider "I just changed amps, take a listen and describe how *this* one sounds" as "no prompting from me"? This situation epitomizes the case of expectation bias. IOW, *knowing* a change was made, a change was 'heard'. So what? That's what the 'objectivists' keep telling you! You see, Harry, the point here is that had she truly "had no prompting", the test would have been essentially blind, and thus the results would be in opposition to your position. And *with* prompting (i.e. knowing a change had been made, the critical biasing factor) the results were exactly as Mr. Chung and others have been describing. So what was the point of the anecdote? Keith Hughes |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message Plus, they were from large and respected companies, not boutiques. Incompetence is not limited to boutiques. So what do you think caused the imaging differences? No, but it is much less likely. I am really glad that you have come to realize that incompetence is much more likely in boutique companies. That's the kind of position one does not acquire by being an inmate of the Audio Asylum. See, this newsgroup is very good . |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message There is more to it than speakers, Chung. Maybe you missed the part about competent? Examples of things that can change imaging: (a) mismatches in frequency response between L and R channels, (b) mistracking of gain between L and R channels as volume control is adjusted, (c) mismatches in L/R output impedances that are significantly large (like those found in SET's), (d) mismatches of phono-equalization between L/R channels, (e) balance control not centered, (f) loudness contour mismatches between L/R channels, and (g) any gross frequency response errors or insufficient S/N (found in SET's, e.g.). These were power amps, Chung Which of the above apply. All of them, except (d), (e) and (f) apply to power amps, if they are not properly designed. Yes, but less likely. How many "unbalanced and defective" power amps have you experienced in your day. They are relatively simple circuits. I am glad that you agree that power amps are relative simple circuits. As such, they really are not hard to design such that they do not cause any imaging problems. On the other hand, SET's are even more simple circuits, and they are often designed to not resemble an ideal voltage amplifier. And I can beleive those could introduce imaging differences. But to answer your question, I have not seen any power amp that images differently from another one, when both are level matched and not clipping. Plus, they were from large and respected companies, not boutiques. Incompetence is not limited to boutiques. So what do you think caused the imaging differences? No, but it is much less likely. Were you listening at equal loudness levels? Yes There is no examples that I can found of imaging differences caused by cables or interconnects, unless they are grossly defective. I do not recall that Mike was talking about wires in this thread. A lot of the DBT's he took as producing negative results were on cables. You think he believes that cables do not cause imaging differences? I don't know whether he does or does not. I've do not recall hearing him assert that here. In any event, if those differences are so real and "palpable" in your sighted testing that your female partner at the time had no trouble identifying them, you think you have trouble differentiating them in a DBT? Would you still need extensive evaluative sessions before you can compare? If a DBT could prove to reveal these types of differences (which a control test is needed for), then I'm sure one would reveal these differences. By proof you mean agreement with sighted testing? So you are saying if both sighted and blind tests show imaging differences, then you think DBT can show imaging differences? Hmmm, you cover all the bases here .Please, Chung. I've spelled out my blind test proposal, which you were the first to respond to. It was a double-blind test, evaluative test. I can only gather that in your rush to respond you didn't both to absorb/think about what I was really proposing. Please, Harry. You wrote that "If a DBT could prove to reveal these types of differences (which a control test is needed for), then I'm sure one would reveal these differences". The classical subjectivist's position of proof is for the sighted and blind results to agree. This is independent from any other proposal you may have written. In any event you were saying that if DBT's are proven to work, then they work. That was what I found amusing. Mike thinks a DBT would not; I honestly don't know. He may be right. What!!! Your female partner (who was implied to be not an audiophile) could hear the palpable differences immediately without any prompt from you, and you think you may not be able to identity them, blind? This is an absolutely amazing admission from a subjectivist. You are saying that once we don't tell you what you are listening to, your hearing ability as an audiophile is much worse than the average person! Nope, I'm saying I don't know how much (because a control test has never been done) going into comparative mode versus evaluative mode would affect it. Do you know how artificial your separation of "evalutive" vs "comparative" sounds to the rest of is? You were saying that those differences were so obvious that your partner could notice them, without you prompting her what those differences were. Now, as soon as someone covers up the idenitity of the amps, you immediately run into this "evaluative" vs "comparative" dilemma that you seem unable to pull yourself out of? What happens to those imaging differences that were so real an palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message More to the point, as described (i.e. "My female partner at the time walked into my listening sessions and accurately caught/described the character of the sound of each with no prompting from me), she was *easily* able to not only distinguish difference (that all-confounding *decision* you keep attributing such nefarious capabilities to), but to comprehensively characterize the differences between the amps *Essentially BLIND*, unless the "no prompting from me" is a complete mischaracterization. So, Mr. Lavo, by your own 'anecdote', "blindness" confers no disadvantages in differentiating amps. Clearly, the process of merely codifying the test protocol, and applying statistical treatments of the data, post-test, can't possibly be a hindrance in detecting *real* sonic differences. At least for your 'female partner' in any event. She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) Hey, you said that "she accurately caught and described the character of the sound of *each* with no prompting from me". To me, that is evaluative *and* comparative, since she could describe the sound of *each" amplifier. For example, there are two amplifiers that I listened to, and I could tell you the character of the sound of each of those two amplifiers. Then I have evaluated them, and I have compared them. What is different in my description of the sounds would be used as a basis for telling them apart. |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
news:TU9Wb.19414$032.65190@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: snip She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) So, you consider "I just changed amps, take a listen and describe how *this* one sounds" as "no prompting from me"? This situation epitomizes the case of expectation bias. IOW, *knowing* a change was made, a change was 'heard'. So what? That's what the 'objectivists' keep telling you! Sorry, Keith. The "she said 'what did you do to make it sound so much better/different' incidents reported here have been roundly villified as "antecdotal". Now that it suits you, these become blind tests? You see, Harry, the point here is that had she truly "had no prompting", the test would have been essentially blind, and thus the results would be in opposition to your position. And *with* prompting (i.e. knowing a change had been made, the critical biasing factor) the results were exactly as Mr. Chung and others have been describing. She knew I had brought a new amp home and was up in the listening room working on it. She had no idea what it was, what to expect. She just walked in, listened about two minutes, and commented. That's certainly sighted, evaluative listening. I made no claim otherwise. But it was another pair of ears who heard it very much like I did (by the way, she enjoys music and goes to a fair amount of concerts, but is certainly not an audiophile). So what was the point of the anecdote? Keith Hughes To illustrate that a simple change of power amps can affect soundstage, an implication Chung is trying to deride. |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message Plus, they were from large and respected companies, not boutiques. Incompetence is not limited to boutiques. So what do you think caused the imaging differences? No, but it is much less likely. I am really glad that you have come to realize that incompetence is much more likely in boutique companies. That's the kind of position one does not acquire by being an inmate of the Audio Asylum. See, this newsgroup is very good .How about 35 years of testing and evaluating equipment? BTW, some of my equipment is by a very small company that is the best of its kind, and has been utterly reliable for 25 years. It is probabilities only, simply due to the less sophisticated manufacturing. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message There is more to it than speakers, Chung. Maybe you missed the part about competent? Examples of things that can change imaging: (a) mismatches in frequency response between L and R channels, (b) mistracking of gain between L and R channels as volume control is adjusted, (c) mismatches in L/R output impedances that are significantly large (like those found in SET's), (d) mismatches of phono-equalization between L/R channels, (e) balance control not centered, (f) loudness contour mismatches between L/R channels, and (g) any gross frequency response errors or insufficient S/N (found in SET's, e.g.). These were power amps, Chung Which of the above apply. All of them, except (d), (e) and (f) apply to power amps, if they are not properly designed. Yes, but less likely. How many "unbalanced and defective" power amps have you experienced in your day. They are relatively simple circuits. I am glad that you agree that power amps are relative simple circuits. As such, they really are not hard to design such that they do not cause any imaging problems. On the other hand, SET's are even more simple circuits, and they are often designed to not resemble an ideal voltage amplifier. And I can beleive those could introduce imaging differences. But to answer your question, I have not seen any power amp that images differently from another one, when both are level matched and not clipping. Okay, we agree, no defective power amps. We disagree on whether that means no imaging difference. Plus, they were from large and respected companies, not boutiques. Incompetence is not limited to boutiques. So what do you think caused the imaging differences? No, but it is much less likely. Were you listening at equal loudness levels? Yes There is no examples that I can found of imaging differences caused by cables or interconnects, unless they are grossly defective. I do not recall that Mike was talking about wires in this thread. A lot of the DBT's he took as producing negative results were on cables. You think he believes that cables do not cause imaging differences? I don't know whether he does or does not. I've do not recall hearing him assert that here. In any event, if those differences are so real and "palpable" in your sighted testing that your female partner at the time had no trouble identifying them, you think you have trouble differentiating them in a DBT? Would you still need extensive evaluative sessions before you can compare? If a DBT could prove to reveal these types of differences (which a control test is needed for), then I'm sure one would reveal these differences. By proof you mean agreement with sighted testing? So you are saying if both sighted and blind tests show imaging differences, then you think DBT can show imaging differences? Hmmm, you cover all the bases here .Please, Chung. I've spelled out my blind test proposal, which you were the first to respond to. It was a double-blind test, evaluative test. I can only gather that in your rush to respond you didn't both to absorb/think about what I was really proposing. Please, Harry. You wrote that "If a DBT could prove to reveal these types of differences (which a control test is needed for), then I'm sure one would reveal these differences". The classical subjectivist's position of proof is for the sighted and blind results to agree. This is independent from any other proposal you may have written. In any event you were saying that if DBT's are proven to work, then they work. That was what I found amusing. Well, what you find "amusing" I find to totally disqualify traditional dbt'ng as the "final arbiter" of the issue. No validation means no credibility. Mike thinks a DBT would not; I honestly don't know. He may be right. What!!! Your female partner (who was implied to be not an audiophile) could hear the palpable differences immediately without any prompt from you, and you think you may not be able to identity them, blind? This is an absolutely amazing admission from a subjectivist. You are saying that once we don't tell you what you are listening to, your hearing ability as an audiophile is much worse than the average person! Nope, I'm saying I don't know how much (because a control test has never been done) going into comparative mode versus evaluative mode would affect it. Do you know how artificial your separation of "evalutive" vs "comparative" sounds to the rest of is? You were saying that those differences were so obvious that your partner could notice them, without you prompting her what those differences were. Now, as soon as someone covers up the idenitity of the amps, you immediately run into this "evaluative" vs "comparative" dilemma that you seem unable to pull yourself out of? What happens to those imaging differences that were so real an palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Well, let me simplify. In the control phase, I am talking about listening to one amp, rating it, and then taking a break. Then doing it again, not knowing what amp I'm dealing with. Until each amp has been evaluated sixteen times, in sixteen "pairs" but one after the other. Then doing a statistical evaluation of the ratings. *That* is evaluative. There is no direct comparison. There is listening and rating. I don't understand why you have such a tough time entertaining this concept? Mike and others (and I think it a distinct possibility) feel that listening and comparing two amps and having to choose is a very different process, using a different part of the brain. The control test is to find out if they give the same results, or different results. Both are blind tests. |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: "Keith Hughes" wrote in message More to the point, as described (i.e. "My female partner at the time walked into my listening sessions and accurately caught/described the character of the sound of each with no prompting from me), she was *easily* able to not only distinguish difference (that all-confounding *decision* you keep attributing such nefarious capabilities to), but to comprehensively characterize the differences between the amps *Essentially BLIND*, unless the "no prompting from me" is a complete mischaracterization. So, Mr. Lavo, by your own 'anecdote', "blindness" confers no disadvantages in differentiating amps. Clearly, the process of merely codifying the test protocol, and applying statistical treatments of the data, post-test, can't possibly be a hindrance in detecting *real* sonic differences. At least for your 'female partner' in any event. She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) Hey, you said that "she accurately caught and described the character of the sound of *each* with no prompting from me". To me, that is evaluative *and* comparative, since she could describe the sound of *each" amplifier. Regardless of whether we're talking about a classic case of 'even my *WIFE* heard it!" anecdotia, the salient fact to me is that Harry has identified two amps whose sound he has 'evaluated' and believes sound obviously different in ways he has articulated. Fine. So much for the evaluative listening step. Time for the next step. Let's level-match the amps and ask Harry to tell them apart using whatever 'evaluative' jargon he likes to indicate audible difference, using the same music he used already (or whatever music he prefers), in the same room with the same system, and, heck, his female partner can join in too...so long as they have only *audible* clues as to the identity of the amp that they're listening to. If analysis of the results shows he can't tell the difference, Harry should concede that the two amps in question probably sounded the same when he thought they sounded different. If he can, let's have the two amps tested for competent design; if the measurements reveal the potential for perceputally significant differences, let's concede that these are probably responsible for the audible difference Harry reported; if no such potential is revealed, let's concede that audible difference probably exists but is due to something not measured by the instruments at hand. Alternately, the amps can be measured beforehand. I'll chip in $50 towards having Tom N. travel to Harry's and proctor such a test of the claims Harry has *already made*. Enough already! ___ -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:OpgWb.143302$U%5.654353@attbi_s03... chung wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: "Keith Hughes" wrote in message More to the point, as described (i.e. "My female partner at the time walked into my listening sessions and accurately caught/described the character of the sound of each with no prompting from me), she was *easily* able to not only distinguish difference (that all-confounding *decision* you keep attributing such nefarious capabilities to), but to comprehensively characterize the differences between the amps *Essentially BLIND*, unless the "no prompting from me" is a complete mischaracterization. So, Mr. Lavo, by your own 'anecdote', "blindness" confers no disadvantages in differentiating amps. Clearly, the process of merely codifying the test protocol, and applying statistical treatments of the data, post-test, can't possibly be a hindrance in detecting *real* sonic differences. At least for your 'female partner' in any event. She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) Hey, you said that "she accurately caught and described the character of the sound of *each* with no prompting from me". To me, that is evaluative *and* comparative, since she could describe the sound of *each" amplifier. Regardless of whether we're talking about a classic case of 'even my *WIFE* heard it!" anecdotia, the salient fact to me is that Harry has identified two amps whose sound he has 'evaluated' and believes sound obviously different in ways he has articulated. Fine. So much for the evaluative listening step. Time for the next step. Let's level-match the amps and ask Harry to tell them apart using whatever 'evaluative' jargon he likes to indicate audible difference, using the same music he used already (or whatever music he prefers), in the same room with the same system, and, heck, his female partner can join in too...so long as they have only *audible* clues as to the identity of the amp that they're listening to. If analysis of the results shows he can't tell the difference, Harry should concede that the two amps in question probably sounded the same when he thought they sounded different. If he can, let's have the two amps tested for competent design; if the measurements reveal the potential for perceputally significant differences, let's concede that these are probably responsible for the audible difference Harry reported; if no such potential is revealed, let's concede that audible difference probably exists but is due to something not measured by the instruments at hand. Alternately, the amps can be measured beforehand. I'll chip in $50 towards having Tom N. travel to Harry's and proctor such a test of the claims Harry has *already made*. Enough already! I've got a small problem with this Steven. This was six years ago, the amps were on loan from dealers, and the one I ended up with is currently out for service (although will be back shortly, I hope). I agree if they were sitting in my basement workshop, it would be worth doing just to stop the incessant memos. |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Keith Hughes" wrote in message More to the point, as described (i.e. "My female partner at the time walked into my listening sessions and accurately caught/described the character of the sound of each with no prompting from me), she was *easily* able to not only distinguish difference (that all-confounding *decision* you keep attributing such nefarious capabilities to), but to comprehensively characterize the differences between the amps *Essentially BLIND*, unless the "no prompting from me" is a complete mischaracterization. So, Mr. Lavo, by your own 'anecdote', "blindness" confers no disadvantages in differentiating amps. Clearly, the process of merely codifying the test protocol, and applying statistical treatments of the data, post-test, can't possibly be a hindrance in detecting *real* sonic differences. At least for your 'female partner' in any event. She knew I had swapped in another amp...but we hadn't discussed "how it sounded" since she had just walked in and heard it for the first time. So it wasn't blind in the sense discussed here. Nor was it comparative; it was evaluative. She described how it sounded to her. Sorry, no points Keith. :-) Hey, you said that "she accurately caught and described the character of the sound of *each* with no prompting from me". To me, that is evaluative *and* comparative, since she could describe the sound of *each" amplifier. No they were "monadic" evaluations. Each amp was tested in the system at a different time, weeks apart. No comparison at all, other than to what she rembered "live" music to sound like. For example, there are two amplifiers that I listened to, and I could tell you the character of the sound of each of those two amplifiers. Then I have evaluated them, and I have compared them. What is different in my description of the sounds would be used as a basis for telling them apart. If you are comparing two amps in close proximity, switching back and forth, you are comparing? If you are listening to and taking notes on an amp (mental, notepad, or scale). Then at another time doing the same for a different amp, then you are evaluating. Get it? |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
" I am glad that you agree that power amps are relative simple circuits. As such, they really are not hard to design such that they do not cause any imaging problems. On the other hand, SET's are even more simple circuits, and they are often designed to not resemble an ideal voltage amplifier. And I can beleive those could introduce imaging differences. But to answer your question, I have not seen any power amp that images differently from another one, when both are level matched and not clipping. Okay, we agree, no defective power amps. No, I said that I have not found any power amps that image differently. I know nothing about your amps, whether they are defective, or whether they are incompetently designed. When you first reported that they were major imaging differences between those amps, I was a little curious about what caused that. But then when I asked you whether you can identify those imaging differences in a DBT and you said you were not sure, your anecdote had simply became another one of those anecdotes that we heard so many of. You know, "my wife in the kitchen could tell that I switched the power cord" kind of anecdote. It simply stops carrying any weight. Well, what you find "amusing" I find to totally disqualify traditional dbt'ng as the "final arbiter" of the issue. No validation means no credibility. Another reason it was amusing is that you call those differences real and palpable, yet when asked whether you could tell them blind, you would no longer be certain. You just knew that you may not pass a DBT, despite the previously expressed strong certainty that there were major imaging differences. Do you know how artificial your separation of "evalutive" vs "comparative" sounds to the rest of is? You were saying that those differences were so obvious that your partner could notice them, without you prompting her what those differences were. Now, as soon as someone covers up the idenitity of the amps, you immediately run into this "evaluative" vs "comparative" dilemma that you seem unable to pull yourself out of? What happens to those imaging differences that were so real an palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Well, let me simplify. In the control phase, I am talking about listening to one amp, rating it, and then taking a break. Then doing it again, not knowing what amp I'm dealing with. Until each amp has been evaluated sixteen times, in sixteen "pairs" but one after the other. Then doing a statistical evaluation of the ratings. *That* is evaluative. There is no direct comparison. There is listening and rating. I don't understand why you have such a tough time entertaining this concept? Mike and others (and I think it a distinct possibility) feel that listening and comparing two amps and having to choose is a very different process, using a different part of the brain. The control test is to find out if they give the same results, or different results. Both are blind tests. The tough time I have understanding what you said is simply this: What happens to those imaging differences that were so real and palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Or did those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves when they know that you have to *compare* now? |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
news:B7uWb.7708$jk2.23709@attbi_s53... Harry Lavo wrote: " I am glad that you agree that power amps are relative simple circuits. As such, they really are not hard to design such that they do not cause any imaging problems. On the other hand, SET's are even more simple circuits, and they are often designed to not resemble an ideal voltage amplifier. And I can beleive those could introduce imaging differences. But to answer your question, I have not seen any power amp that images differently from another one, when both are level matched and not clipping. Okay, we agree, no defective power amps. No, I said that I have not found any power amps that image differently. I know nothing about your amps, whether they are defective, or whether they are incompetently designed. When you first reported that they were major imaging differences between those amps, I was a little curious about what caused that. But then when I asked you whether you can identify those imaging differences in a DBT and you said you were not sure, your anecdote had simply became another one of those anecdotes that we heard so many of. You know, "my wife in the kitchen could tell that I switched the power cord" kind of anecdote. It simply stops carrying any weight. Well, what you find "amusing" I find to totally disqualify traditional dbt'ng as the "final arbiter" of the issue. No validation means no credibility. Another reason it was amusing is that you call those differences real and palpable, yet when asked whether you could tell them blind, you would no longer be certain. You just knew that you may not pass a DBT, despite the previously expressed strong certainty that there were major imaging differences. Do you know how artificial your separation of "evalutive" vs "comparative" sounds to the rest of is? You were saying that those differences were so obvious that your partner could notice them, without you prompting her what those differences were. Now, as soon as someone covers up the idenitity of the amps, you immediately run into this "evaluative" vs "comparative" dilemma that you seem unable to pull yourself out of? What happens to those imaging differences that were so real an palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Well, let me simplify. In the control phase, I am talking about listening to one amp, rating it, and then taking a break. Then doing it again, not knowing what amp I'm dealing with. Until each amp has been evaluated sixteen times, in sixteen "pairs" but one after the other. Then doing a statistical evaluation of the ratings. *That* is evaluative. There is no direct comparison. There is listening and rating. I don't understand why you have such a tough time entertaining this concept? Mike and others (and I think it a distinct possibility) feel that listening and comparing two amps and having to choose is a very different process, using a different part of the brain. The control test is to find out if they give the same results, or different results. Both are blind tests. The tough time I have understanding what you said is simply this: What happens to those imaging differences that were so real and palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Or did those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves when they know that you have to *compare* now? How about if the part of the brain that 'compares' when left on its own is not the part that recognizes "images" but reqires some evaluation by the another part of the brain to work with it, and has trouble doing that in a comparative test? |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
Hey, you said that "she accurately caught and described the character of the sound of *each* with no prompting from me". To me, that is evaluative *and* comparative, since she could describe the sound of *each" amplifier. No they were "monadic" evaluations. Each amp was tested in the system at a different time, weeks apart. No comparison at all, other than to what she rembered "live" music to sound like. For example, there are two amplifiers that I listened to, and I could tell you the character of the sound of each of those two amplifiers. Then I have evaluated them, and I have compared them. What is different in my description of the sounds would be used as a basis for telling them apart. If you are comparing two amps in close proximity, switching back and forth, you are comparing? If you are listening to and taking notes on an amp (mental, notepad, or scale). Then at another time doing the same for a different amp, then you are evaluating. Get it? Webster's: compa to examine in order to observe or discover similarities or differences. Nothing about close proximity, or switching back and forth. In fact, compare clearly involves evaluate, as Bob Marcus has said in another post. Get it? If she could tell you what sounded different, she was comparing. Simple, no? |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message The tough time I have understanding what you said is simply this: What happens to those imaging differences that were so real and palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Or did those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves when they know that you have to *compare* now? How about if the part of the brain that 'compares' when left on its own is not the part that recognizes "images" but reqires some evaluation by the another part of the brain to work with it, and has trouble doing that in a comparative test? Let's not go into the twilight zone... How about this: (a) If the differences are real and palpable, then of course they will be revealed in a level-matched controlled DBT's. Even you and Mike Kuller said that gross differences are revealed by DBT's, and you already said that those differences you observed sighted were gross. Note that I am also accepting that they may be real, since there may be physical reasons like channel mismatches or frequency response errors that affect imaging. It would also be interesting to make measurements to understand what it was that caused the imaging differences if they were real. (b) If the differences go away in a level-matched well-controlled DBT, then those previously observed differences were caused by expectation bias, or a lack of proper control like listening at different levels or locations within your room. When you move about in a room, imaging changes, so you have to really careful to make conclusions about imaging. That's why I am leery of anyone saying that imaging changes dramatically after any change to the system, except speakers, speaker positioning or room treatments. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"chung" wrote in message
news:NZCWb.10519$yE5.52569@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message The tough time I have understanding what you said is simply this: What happens to those imaging differences that were so real and palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Or did those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves when they know that you have to *compare* now? How about if the part of the brain that 'compares' when left on its own is not the part that recognizes "images" but reqires some evaluation by the another part of the brain to work with it, and has trouble doing that in a comparative test? Let's not go into the twilight zone... How about this: (a) If the differences are real and palpable, then of course they will be revealed in a level-matched controlled DBT's. Even you and Mike Kuller said that gross differences are revealed by DBT's, and you already said that those differences you observed sighted were gross. Note that I am also accepting that they may be real, since there may be physical reasons like channel mismatches or frequency response errors that affect imaging. It would also be interesting to make measurements to understand what it was that caused the imaging differences if they were real. (b) If the differences go away in a level-matched well-controlled DBT, then those previously observed differences were caused by expectation bias, or a lack of proper control like listening at different levels or locations within your room. When you move about in a room, imaging changes, so you have to really careful to make conclusions about imaging. That's why I am leery of anyone saying that imaging changes dramatically after any change to the system, except speakers, speaker positioning or room treatments. Chung, you keep just "willing away" actual phenomenon. Give me some credit...I know how to sit in the same spot in a carefully designed listening room. I also know how to volume match. Finally, I also "know" what flat vs. 3D soundstages sound like. And, BTW, with a true 3D soundstage you can hear the dimensionality from a broad range of locations other than the sweet spot. These differences were palpable, and were a characteristic of perfectly functioning equipment. Whether you have room in *your* theory for same or not. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:NZCWb.10519$yE5.52569@attbi_s54... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message The tough time I have understanding what you said is simply this: What happens to those imaging differences that were so real and palpable? Do those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves once you put a cover over the amps? Or did those instruments/voices all of a sudden relocate themselves when they know that you have to *compare* now? How about if the part of the brain that 'compares' when left on its own is not the part that recognizes "images" but reqires some evaluation by the another part of the brain to work with it, and has trouble doing that in a comparative test? Let's not go into the twilight zone... How about this: (a) If the differences are real and palpable, then of course they will be revealed in a level-matched controlled DBT's. Even you and Mike Kuller said that gross differences are revealed by DBT's, and you already said that those differences you observed sighted were gross. Note that I am also accepting that they may be real, since there may be physical reasons like channel mismatches or frequency response errors that affect imaging. It would also be interesting to make measurements to understand what it was that caused the imaging differences if they were real. (b) If the differences go away in a level-matched well-controlled DBT, then those previously observed differences were caused by expectation bias, or a lack of proper control like listening at different levels or locations within your room. When you move about in a room, imaging changes, so you have to really careful to make conclusions about imaging. That's why I am leery of anyone saying that imaging changes dramatically after any change to the system, except speakers, speaker positioning or room treatments. Chung, you keep just "willing away" actual phenomenon. Didn't I say that I am accepting that they may be real? More to the point, sighted testing has a way of "willing in" phenomena. Give me some credit...I know how to sit in the same spot in a carefully designed listening room. I also know how to volume match. How about your female partner? Did she exercise the same care? Finally, I also "know" what flat vs. 3D soundstages sound like. And, BTW, with a true 3D soundstage you can hear the dimensionality from a broad range of locations other than the sweet spot. These differences were palpable, and were a characteristic of perfectly functioning equipment. If they were palpable, you should be able to tell them sighted or blind. On the other hand, if you can only detect the differences sighted (or evaluative as you put it), how palpable are they really? Whether you have room in *your* theory for same or not. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry wrote:
Chung, you keep just "willing away" actual phenomenon. Give me some credit...I know how to sit in the same spot in a carefully designed listening room. I also know how to volume match. Finally, I also "know" what flat vs. 3D soundstages sound like. And, BTW, with a true 3D soundstage you can hear the dimensionality from a broad range of locations other than the sweet spot. These differences were palpable, and were a characteristic of perfectly functioning equipment. Whether you have room in *your* theory for same or not. Chung isn't willing away anything, and his theory fully explains the phenomenon you report. If there was nothing wrong with these amps, then what you experienced was the placebo effect. If you don't like that theory, you're free to propose your own--but we'd like to see some empirical data to back it up. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I'll chip in $50 towards having Tom N. travel to Harry's and proctor such a test of the claims Harry has *already made*. Enough already! I've got a small problem with this Steven. This was six years ago, the amps were on loan from dealers, and the one I ended up with is currently out for service (although will be back shortly, I hope). I agree if they were sitting in my basement workshop, it would be worth doing just to stop the incessant memos. But the principle holds. Surely you haven't stopped hearing differences in the intervening six years. Surely there's some pair of amps or cables or treatments that you have 'evaluated' recently that could serve, no? Let's start with what you *already claim to be different*, having used your listening paradigm, and thus obviate the need for a whole new 'evaluative listening' step. |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Harry wrote: Chung, you keep just "willing away" actual phenomenon. Give me some credit...I know how to sit in the same spot in a carefully designed listening room. I also know how to volume match. Finally, I also "know" what flat vs. 3D soundstages sound like. And, BTW, with a true 3D soundstage you can hear the dimensionality from a broad range of locations other than the sweet spot. These differences were palpable, and were a characteristic of perfectly functioning equipment. Whether you have room in *your* theory for same or not. Chung isn't willing away anything, and his theory fully explains the phenomenon you report. If there was nothing wrong with these amps, then what you experienced was the placebo effect. If you don't like that theory, you're free to propose your own--but we'd like to see some empirical data to back it up. bob Here we go again. Chung made a statement that only a defective amp would create a different soundstage. I gave a specific anecdotal statement about a specific listening experience with three different amps. Now I am being challenged to "prove" it with a dbt, and even though I explain why I can't "prove it with a dbt (equipment I don't own and six years ago) I am told that "since I can't hear it blind, its a placebo effect" or I should evaluate some different equipment now just to prove I can hear differences. I didn't test it blind six years ago folks, so I don't know whether I would have heard it or not. But the reason I didn't was that the difference was dramatic, not subtle. And my partner heard the same thing without prompting...I guess it was a placebo for her too. By the way, a placebo means you think you are getting one thing, and you are really not being given that thing. Pretty hard to use that to explain why three different unfamiliar amps, none of which I knew anything about, would sound different to me. Want to talk about an unconscious sight bias, it might make sense, but a placebo effect? As to that sight bias, the one that I like best on looks sounded worst. The second best looking sounded second best. And the plainest and cheapest looking sounded best. But it was not the cheapest, it fell in between. Would somebody care to explain my "sight bias" with some kind of coherent theory, rather than simply arm waving and accusation by innuendo. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:m%gXb.175723$U%5.833301@attbi_s03... By the way, a placebo means you think you are getting one thing, and you are really not being given that thing. Pretty hard to use that to explain why three different unfamiliar amps, none of which I knew anything about, would sound different to me. Want to talk about an unconscious sight bias, it might make sense, but a placebo effect? By placebo, we generally mean that you think you hear a change when nothing has audibly changed. But call it whatever you like, Harry. As to that sight bias, the one that I like best on looks sounded worst. The second best looking sounded second best. And the plainest and cheapest looking sounded best. But it was not the cheapest, it fell in between. Would somebody care to explain my "sight bias" with some kind of coherent theory, rather than simply arm waving and accusation by innuendo. Who's accusing you, and what innuendo? Sighted bias merely means that visual information influences your assessment of what you hear. If you're only imagining a difference (and remember, that's only an if, since we haven't tested it properly), then I can't possibly explain why you imagine one amp to sound better than another. Sighted bias doesn't just tell you what each amp looks like--it identifies each amp for you, which allows you to associate the sound with everything you know or have read or heard about that amp, its design, or its manufacturer. Sighted bias exists. It is beyond scientific dispute (which is not to say that everything is beyond scientific dispute). The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/ |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... Harry wrote: Chung, you keep just "willing away" actual phenomenon. Give me some credit...I know how to sit in the same spot in a carefully designed listening room. I also know how to volume match. Finally, I also "know" what flat vs. 3D soundstages sound like. And, BTW, with a true 3D soundstage you can hear the dimensionality from a broad range of locations other than the sweet spot. These differences were palpable, and were a characteristic of perfectly functioning equipment. Whether you have room in *your* theory for same or not. Chung isn't willing away anything, and his theory fully explains the phenomenon you report. If there was nothing wrong with these amps, then what you experienced was the placebo effect. If you don't like that theory, you're free to propose your own--but we'd like to see some empirical data to back it up. bob Here we go again. Chung made a statement that only a defective amp would create a different soundstage. Actually, if you read carefully, the statement was that competent amps do not cause imaging differences. An amp maybe poorly designed (like certain SET's with very high output impedances), but not defective, since it met its design specs. Another point that you missed was that there were reasons given to why you and your partner might have heard different imaging, like levels not matched, listening positions not the same, etc. I gave a specific anecdotal statement about a specific listening experience with three different amps. Now I am being challenged to "prove" it with a dbt, and even though I explain why I can't "prove it with a dbt (equipment I don't own and six years ago) I am told that "since I can't hear it blind, its a placebo effect" No, it could be simply that proper controls were not in place. or I should evaluate some different equipment now just to prove I can hear differences. You actually brought that issue up because you said that you might not be able to hear those real and palpable differences in a DBT (irrespective of whether you still have those amps or not). I didn't test it blind six years ago folks, so I don't know whether I would have heard it or not. But the reason I didn't was that the difference was dramatic, not subtle. And my partner heard the same thing without prompting...I guess it was a placebo for her too. Or poorly control tests, or faulty memory. Or different moods? By the way, a placebo means you think you are getting one thing, and you are really not being given that thing. Pretty hard to use that to explain why three different unfamiliar amps, none of which I knew anything about, would sound different to me. Because you *know* that you are listening to different amps, perhaps? Want to talk about an unconscious sight bias, it might make sense, but a placebo effect? As to that sight bias, the one that I like best on looks sounded worst. The second best looking sounded second best. And the plainest and cheapest looking sounded best. But it was not the cheapest, it fell in between. Would somebody care to explain my "sight bias" with some kind of coherent theory, rather than simply arm waving and accusation by innuendo. Explained already. All you have to do is re-read. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
snip I gave a specific anecdotal statement about a specific listening experience with three different amps. Now I am being challenged to "prove" it with a dbt, Uhmm, seems to me you ignored the rest of the post. To wit, that surely in the intervening timeframe you've established a "reference" by identification of differences, sighted, between a couple of components (such as amps) that you could now verify using a DBT. Why would you choose to excise such a clearly relevant section? snip By the way, a placebo means you think you are getting one thing, and you are really not being given that thing. Sorry Harry, this is utter hogwash. Have you, perchance, ever been involved with a clinical trial? It would seem not. Informed consent being what it is, the patient is *always* aware that he/she is involved in a clinical trial, and that the substance administered will be *either* a placebo, or the "real" thing. No one is ever told they are receiving an efficacious (or purportedly efficacious) drug, when they may be given a placebo (remember, the physician does not know either). Such a practice would be a serious ethical breach, and a clinical protocol incorporating such conduct would *not* be approved. Would somebody care to explain my "sight bias" with some kind of coherent theory, rather than simply arm waving and accusation by innuendo. Sure. Once you know, a priori, that a change has been made in the system, you (and all humanity) are predisposed to find a difference. It has nothing to do with "expecting a particular outcome". From an evolutionary perspective, a false positive for "same" carries a greater selective disadvantage than a false positive for 'difference'. I.e., when there is no change in the environment, perception of change is less dangerous than not perceiving change when it does occur. Thus, selective pressures will favor identification of 'change', real or not, over false identification of 'same'. Follow the logic; failure to recognise edible fruit (possibly leading to hunger/starvation) is, on average, less dangerous to survival than failure to recognize a difference between edible and poisonous fruit. This holds true for recognition of predators, environmental conditions, geographical conditions, etc. IOW, erring toward false identification of difference results in a more cautious attitude, which averaged over the range of individual conditions, results in enhanced survival chances (e.g., for all animals, the "fight or flight" response is skewed towards flight. Why? There is almost never a selective disadvantage. A skew towards 'fight' would, in many instances, result in a definite selective disadvantage). Enhanced survival = positive selective pressure. Positive selective pressure = incorporation into the gene pool. Keith Hughes |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:CXtWb.278893$xy6.1422334@attbi_s02... If you are listening to and taking notes on an amp (mental, notepad, or scale). Then at another time doing the same for a different amp, then you are evaluating. Get it? I think I get it. My question is: If you have the notepad from all your evaluations, can you look at what's written for the 2 amps in question and tell me whether they are different amplifiers, or the same one? If you can't, I would question the value of the process. Norm Strong |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Sighted bias exists. It is beyond scientific dispute (which is not to say
that everything is beyond scientific dispute). The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story. bob By this claim it sounds like you are saying that when you or any other objectivist listens to amps sighted you cannot help but percieve a difference in comparisons to other amps. Is this true? Do all amps sound different to all objsctivists in sighted comparisons? Have none of you listened to an amp comparison sighted and thought you heard no difference? |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Sighted bias exists. It is beyond scientific dispute (which is not to say
that everything is beyond scientific dispute). The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story. bob By this claim it sounds like you are saying that when you or any other objectivist listens to amps sighted you cannot help but percieve a difference in comparisons to other amps. Is this true? Do all amps sound different to all objsctivists in sighted comparisons? Have none of you listened to an amp comparison sighted and thought you heard no difference? Good question. Truth be told, I haven't compared amps directly in a long time. Yes, we're as prone to sighted bias as any other normal human. But because we're more skeptical about what we perceive, we're less likely to jump to a conclusion based on that perception. So you are saying that objectvists "percieve" differences between amps in sighted comparisons just like anyone else but are less likely to believe their perceptions? |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
nabob wrote:
Sighted bias exists. It is beyond scientific dispute (which is not to say that everything is beyond scientific dispute). The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story. Pretty strong beliefs at work here... wrote: By this claim it sounds like you are saying that when you or any other objectivist listens to amps sighted you cannot help but percieve a difference in comparisons to other amps. Is this true? Do all amps sound different to all objsctivists in sighted comparisons? Have none of you listened to an amp comparison sighted and thought you heard no difference? How about sighted listening by objectivists to loudspeakers? Sure you think they probably sound different blind, but what part of what you are hearing sighted is *bias* and what part of it is real audible differences? How about the tighter bass, the cleaner highs, the greater transparency and inner detail, the wider dynamic contrasts, the superior imaging? Which, if any, of those audible differences have you ever identified in a blind comparison? Most likely - *none*. So do they exist here in your sighted speaker comparison or are they merely your sighted bias at work... and how do you know? Objectivists please enlighten us? Regards, Mike |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
(S888Wheel) wrote in message
... So you are saying that objectvists "percieve" differences between amps in sighted comparisons just like anyone else but are less likely to believe their perceptions? I'm saying that objectivists are *liable* to perceive differences between amps, just like anybody else. As for, "less likely to believe their perceptions," that's a bit trickier. If I perceive a difference between two amps, there are several possible explanations: 1) level difference 2) frequency response difference 3) clipping 4) I'm imagining it. Without measurements (to check #1-3) or a blind test (#4), I couldn't tell you whether my perception was accurate or not. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Say “good-bye” to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/ |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
nabob wrote: Sighted bias exists. It is beyond scientific dispute (which is not to say that everything is beyond scientific dispute). The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story. Pretty strong beliefs at work here... wrote: By this claim it sounds like you are saying that when you or any other objectivist listens to amps sighted you cannot help but percieve a difference in comparisons to other amps. Is this true? Do all amps sound different to all objsctivists in sighted comparisons? Have none of you listened to an amp comparison sighted and thought you heard no difference? How about sighted listening by objectivists to loudspeakers? Sure you think they probably sound different blind, but what part of what you are hearing sighted is *bias* and what part of it is real audible differences? How about the tighter bass, the cleaner highs, the greater transparency and inner detail, the wider dynamic contrasts, the superior imaging? Which, if any, of those audible differences have you ever identified in a blind comparison? Most likely - *none*. So do they exist here in your sighted speaker comparison or are they merely your sighted bias at work... and how do you know? You don't, 'for sure'. But, unlike for cables and amps, you do have good, independent reasons to believe that speakers are *likely* to sound different...based on what speakers *do* and how they work and how they are built. And of course , some speakers mfrs (e.g. Harman/JBL) *do* use blinded protocols to verify audible differences in speakers. Objectivists please enlighten us? Asked and answered, many times before. And now, again. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
|
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
How about sighted listening by objectivists to loudspeakers? Sure you think they probably sound different blind, but what part of what you are hearing sighted is *bias* and what part of it is real audible differences? How about the tighter bass, the cleaner highs, the greater transparency and inner detail, the wider dynamic contrasts, the superior imaging? Which, if any, of those audible differences have you ever identified in a blind comparison? Most likely - *none*. So do they exist here in your sighted speaker comparison or are they merely your sighted bias at work... and how do you know? Steven Sullivan wrote: You don't, 'for sure'. But, unlike for cables and amps, you do have good, independent reasons to believe that speakers are *likely* to sound different...based on what speakers *do* and how they work and how they are built. Based on all of the different types of designs of audio amplifiers and all of the differences in tolerences, quality and parts that are used in them, they would seem to have a high likelyhood of sounding different. Asked and answered, many times before. And now, again. Apart from the condescension, you seem to have *no* answer. The fact that two loudspeakers are *more likely* to sound different than, say, two cables means -*they MAY sound different*, but that's all. So are all of the differences you may describe to better speakers - listed above - illusions, bias or real audible differences? nabob says rather definitively: "Sighted bias... The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story." The answer seems to be - you don't know, and you don't care because it's much easier to listen blind to amps and cables than speakers. I suspect if you did listen to speakers blind, you would be able to identify *only loudness and gross frequency response differences* - because that is all your blind tests seem capable of showing. Regards, Mike |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... So you are saying that objectvists "percieve" differences between amps in sighted comparisons just like anyone else but are less likely to believe their perceptions? I'm saying that objectivists are *liable* to perceive differences between amps, just like anybody else. As for, "less likely to believe their perceptions," that's a bit trickier. If I perceive a difference between two amps, there are several possible explanations: 1) level difference 2) frequency response difference 3) clipping 4) I'm imagining it. Without measurements (to check #1-3) or a blind test (#4), I couldn't tell you whether my perception was accurate or not. Interesting that you leave out possibility #5 - "5) There actually is a difference." Seems to me there is a bias at work here. |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... So you are saying that objectvists "percieve" differences between amps in sighted comparisons just like anyone else but are less likely to believe their perceptions? I'm saying that objectivists are *liable* to perceive differences between amps, just like anybody else. As for, "less likely to believe their perceptions," that's a bit trickier. If I perceive a difference between two amps, there are several possible explanations: 1) level difference 2) frequency response difference 3) clipping 4) I'm imagining it. Without measurements (to check #1-3) or a blind test (#4), I couldn't tell you whether my perception was accurate or not. Interesting that you leave out possibility #5 - "5) There actually is a difference." Seems to me there is a bias at work here. Hmmm, I don't know how you can possibly misread what was written: explanations (1) through (3) all indicate that there is a difference. I agree that there is bias at work, here, in someone's mind . |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:HKDYb.60958$uV3.390844@attbi_s51... "Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... If I perceive a difference between two amps, there are several possible explanations: 1) level difference 2) frequency response difference 3) clipping 4) I'm imagining it. Without measurements (to check #1-3) or a blind test (#4), I couldn't tell you whether my perception was accurate or not. Interesting that you leave out possibility #5 - "5) There actually is a difference." Uh, #1-3 ARE actual differences, Harry. I'd be happy to add any others--if there's some empirical evidence for them. Seems to me there is a bias at work here. Just a knee-jerk rejection of hokum. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
Mkuller wrote: How about sighted listening by objectivists to loudspeakers? Sure you think they probably sound different blind, but what part of what you are hearing sighted is *bias* and what part of it is real audible differences? How about the tighter bass, the cleaner highs, the greater transparency and inner detail, the wider dynamic contrasts, the superior imaging? Which, if any, of those audible differences have you ever identified in a blind comparison? Most likely - *none*. So do they exist here in your sighted speaker comparison or are they merely your sighted bias at work... and how do you know? Steven Sullivan wrote: You don't, 'for sure'. But, unlike for cables and amps, you do have good, independent reasons to believe that speakers are *likely* to sound different...based on what speakers *do* and how they work and how they are built. Based on all of the different types of designs of audio amplifiers and all of the differences in tolerences, quality and parts that are used in them, they would seem to have a high likelyhood of sounding different. That presumes the range of tolerances and the 'sound' of electronic parts is *likely* to vary in an audible manner in a *competent* design. Which is not what I've seen competent engineering/audiophile types argue. I would guess, though , that amps are more likely to sound different than cables. Asked and answered, many times before. And now, again. Apart from the condescension, you seem to have *no* answer. The fact that two loudspeakers are *more likely* to sound different than, say, two cables means -*they MAY sound different*, but that's all. No, it doesn't. The word 'likely' means that more credence can reasonably given to a report of difference between speakers, than to cables, if ALL YOU KNOW is that speakers or cables are being compared. It's reasonable to consider other factors as well, of course. So are all of the differences you may describe to better speakers - listed above - illusions, bias or real audible differences? *You* ascribed the above differences to speakers. Don't put your words in my mouth, please. And without good definitions and agreement on what is meant by those terms, it's quite possible for there to be disagreement on what two people hear when comparing the same pair of speakers. However, the likelihood that they both heard a real *difference* -- regardless of how they described it -- is greater for a speaker comparison than for reports about cables. nabob says rather definitively: "Sighted bias... The only way you can avoid it is to listen blind. End of story." The answer seems to be - you don't know, and you don't care because it's much easier to listen blind to amps and cables than speakers. Er...no. It's called making an *educated* guess. Bias is always a possibility -- only subjectivists seem to ever deny it -- but it's a *safer* bet that speakers really do sound different, than cables. I suspect if you did listen to speakers blind, you would be able to identify *only loudness and gross frequency response differences* - because that is all your blind tests seem capable of showing. Speakers differences ARE relatively gross...compared to the limits of what is measureable. That's why they're likely to be audible! I bet I'd be able to identify speaker A from speaker B in a blind test. I bet you would too. But I bet you wouldn't be able to do so with a pair of decent cables. You are of course free to claim the money pot if I'm wrong about the latter. Why don't you give it a try? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
I suspect if you did listen to speakers blind, you would be able to identify *only loudness and gross frequency response differences* - because that is all your blind tests seem capable of showing. Steven Sullivan wrote: Speakers differences ARE relatively gross...compared to the limits of what is measureable. That's why they're likely to be audible! I bet I'd be able to identify speaker A from speaker B in a blind test. I bet you would too. But I bet you wouldn't be able to do so with a pair of decent cables. You are of course free to claim the money pot if I'm wrong about the latter. Why don't you give it a try? Your *unverified DBT* will probably not be able to show the audible differences between amplifiers, much less between cables that sound different. That's why I put $500 in to the pot - it's a very safe bet. Regards, Mike |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yet another DBT post
Mkuller wrote:
Mkuller wrote: I suspect if you did listen to speakers blind, you would be able to identify *only loudness and gross frequency response differences* - because that is all your blind tests seem capable of showing. Steven Sullivan wrote: Speakers differences ARE relatively gross...compared to the limits of what is measureable. That's why they're likely to be audible! I bet I'd be able to identify speaker A from speaker B in a blind test. I bet you would too. But I bet you wouldn't be able to do so with a pair of decent cables. You are of course free to claim the money pot if I'm wrong about the latter. Why don't you give it a try? Your *unverified DBT* will probably not be able to show the audible differences between amplifiers, much less between cables that sound different. Disregarding that 'unverified DBT' is a creation of you and Harry, rather than something real: you think it would work for speakers, then? That's why I put $500 in to the pot - it's a very safe bet. You assert, then, that there's a form of DBT that *would* finally reveal the differences between cables taht subjectivists keep reporting? Hey, knock yourself out: if the protocol is scientifically sound, I'm happy to include it as part of the bet. Now, show us you're right and all those psychoacousticians are wrong. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to Post to Usenet | Car Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
| [Admin] Rec.Audio.High-End Newsgroup Guidelines | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
