Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I think you're overlooking something. In most scientific
DBT tests, the purpose of the test is not to form some
consensus of opinion, but is, rather, to ascertain facts
that might be otherwise hidden by false positives,
placebo effect, etc.


This differs from audio DBTs how?

For instance, drug tests are not
looking for an opinion about the efficacy of the drug
they are looking for real physical results from that
drug.


In a similar fashion, audio DBTs are looking for a real physical effect on
human perceptions.


Control subjects with the condition that the drug
is supposed to treat are given placebos, other subjects
are given the drug under test. The purpose is to find out
if the drug is effective and this is ascertained by
physicians examining the subjects.


Audiophiles tell us that they don't need an attending physician to know
whether they are hearing a difference. I'll check the room for an attending
physican the next time I visit a high end audio store. Maybe things have
changed... ;-)

Of course the subjects
don't know which group they're in and neither do their
attending physicians. But the fact is that the test is
not looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for
improvements in a medical condition. Either the drugs
improve the patients' condition or they don't. The
subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or not).


Right, and either the audiophile's "new clothes" make a difference, or they
don't.

In an audio DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion


Not an opinion, just simply whether they hear a difference.

and is mentally participating.


Mentally particpating doesn't seem to invalidate sighted comparisons at the
high fi store or some friend's house.

Quite a different thing.


At some level everything's different, so what?

Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a
sine wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had
moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio
magazine and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked
these alleged obvious faults.


They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had
noticed it.


I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars
or at least forcably bend the truth in ways that are
detrimental to their readers. Strange.


I'm saying nothing of the kind, please don't undertake to
put words in my mouth.


If memory serves many of these reviews showed technical tests that would
have demonstrated the alleged notch distortion, had it existed.

There are two types of "buff" publications: The first
type owes it's first allegiance to its advertisers. The
second type owes its first allegiance to its readers.


The only ones that owes their first allegiance to the listeners are the ones
that don't depend on equipment loans from dealers and manufacturers and
don't carry any ads.

Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were both the first type.


As is Stereophile and Absolute Sound.

That's why the second type (Stereophile and The Absolute
Sound) were founded.


But, they both sold out to their equipment vendors, one way or the other.

For a long time neither of the
latter two carried any advertising at all. I remember
more than once, either harry Pearson or Gordon Holt
coming right out and saying that such-and-such was a
piece of s__t.


It's been a long time since I've seen that!

Of course, today, SR and HF are long gone, and now
Stereophile and TAS are THE mainstream US hi-fi
publications and both are owned by different people than
those who started them and their editorial policies are
much different.


ound and Vision still has a competitive subscriber base.

Since both carry advertising now, I
cannot say for sure that they too haven't become the
first type that I outlined above.


The hidden agenda all along was that even if they didn't carry ads, they
were dependent on vendor loans.

Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
industry.


Not necessarily a problem as long as they are
constrained by the truth.


By definition, it is a big problem. Have you ever seen a
PR release for a product that extolled that product's
mediocrity? Of course not. To my knowledge, Dynaco never
released any PR information or any specifications which
stated that "Our new ST-120 runs in hard class 'B' and
has a new feature called 'crossover notch distortion'
which we think improves the sound."



AFAIK, those are audiophile myths. I'm still awaiting hard evidence.

And neither SR or HF
would EVER report anything that might put an advertiser's
(or possible advertisers') products in a bad light. HF,
initially, had a policy that they wouldn't publish the
reviews of any piece of equipment that didn't meet the
manufacturer's specs. Later, they changed their policy to
simply not mentioning any shortfalls in performance that
they encountered (it was mostly this policy, according to
Gordon Holt, that caused him to quit HF and eventually
found Stereophile).. Then there was Julian Hirsch. Mr.
Hirsch, who "reviewed" equipment for Stereo Review for
more than 30 years, apparently never met an audio
component that he didn't like.


Wrong. It was well known that they received a lot of equipment for which
they never published reviews, for one reason or the other. They simply
followed the polite rule that if they couldn't say something good, they
published nothing.

His tag line, which
summed-up almost every review he ever wrote: "Of course,
the (name and model of unit under test goes here) like
all modern (preamps, amplifiers, receivers, CD players,
tuners, you name it) has no sound of it's own...", became
somewhat of a audiophile joke for years.


We found that the joke was on the audiophiles - the characteristic sounds
that they staked their billfolds on mysteriously went away when they
couldn't see what they were listening to.

His reviews were
so uncritical that they weren't worth reading by anybody
except the manufacturer, their PR firm, and their
dealers.


Sez a lot of high enders who have no doubt been mislead by their prejudices
over the year.

Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
true for the last 8-10 years.


I don't know what reliable basis you have for making
that claim.


The reliable basis is that without the computer-based
design tools employed by modern circuit designers, it was
difficult to make amplifying circuits perfect.


There is no need to make amplifying circuits perfect.

We did DBTs that showed that the circuit diagrams in the 1968 RCA transistor
manual produced sonically transparent power amps.

Many designers tried to *improve* on their sonics, and some of us even
invested in those stories, but they just weren't true.

Each had
its own character, which reflected the tastes of its
designer(s).


A hypothesis that has failed virtually every DBT that was done to support
it.

Nowdays, most amps converge on being
extremely neutral and do so because the tools allow them
to do that easily.


Since 1968, if not earlier.



  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Scott" wrote in message


So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.

Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Playback
chain":

"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


It is always far better for people who believe in the non-existence or
rarity of sonically transparent audio gear to do the testing and obtain peer
review for their papers.

Where are the peer reviewed articles that support your many claims about
puported new technology super turntables, arms and cartrdiges, Scott?


  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:14:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I think you're overlooking something. In most scientific
DBT tests, the purpose of the test is not to form some
consensus of opinion, but is, rather, to ascertain facts
that might be otherwise hidden by false positives,
placebo effect, etc.


This differs from audio DBTs how?

For instance, drug tests are not
looking for an opinion about the efficacy of the drug
they are looking for real physical results from that
drug.


In a similar fashion, audio DBTs are looking for a real physical effect on
human perceptions.


Exactly! The human perception part is the rub here. Unlike drug effects,
human perception is mercurial and dependent on many things that have nothing
to do with the actual performance of the equipment.


Control subjects with the condition that the drug
is supposed to treat are given placebos, other subjects
are given the drug under test. The purpose is to find out
if the drug is effective and this is ascertained by
physicians examining the subjects.


Audiophiles tell us that they don't need an attending physician to know
whether they are hearing a difference. I'll check the room for an attending
physican the next time I visit a high end audio store. Maybe things have
changed... ;-)

Of course the subjects
don't know which group they're in and neither do their
attending physicians. But the fact is that the test is
not looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for
improvements in a medical condition. Either the drugs
improve the patients' condition or they don't. The
subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or not).


Right, and either the audiophile's "new clothes" make a difference, or they
don't.


Not so. Either the audiophiles hear a statistically significant difference or
they don't. If they do, that's a positive result. If they don't, it COULD be
that there is no difference between the test units, or it could be that for
reasons other than the equipment, they give a negative result. Remember, the
old scientific axiom: Absence of evidence does NOT, in and of itself,
indicate evidence of absence.

In an audio DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion


Not an opinion, just simply whether they hear a difference.


ER, that would be an opinion.

and is mentally participating.


Mentally particpating doesn't seem to invalidate sighted comparisons at the
high fi store or some friend's house.


I never said that it does.

Quite a different thing.


At some level everything's different, so what?


Thank you. Now the only question remains is the difference significant enough
to quibble over? I say, in most cases, no. Others may disagree.

Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a
sine wave test tone. By
the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had
moved-on.

The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio
magazine and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked
these alleged obvious faults.

They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had
noticed it.

I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars
or at least forcably bend the truth in ways that are
detrimental to their readers. Strange.


I'm saying nothing of the kind, please don't undertake to
put words in my mouth.


If memory serves many of these reviews showed technical tests that would
have demonstrated the alleged notch distortion, had it existed.

There are two types of "buff" publications: The first
type owes it's first allegiance to its advertisers. The
second type owes its first allegiance to its readers.


The only ones that owes their first allegiance to the listeners are the ones
that don't depend on equipment loans from dealers and manufacturers and
don't carry any ads.


That's not really true. Or at least it didn't use to be true. Don't know
about Stereophile and TAS today. Years ago, manufacturers loaned these
publications equipment and if they weren't good, these publications said so!

Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were both the first type.


As is Stereophile and Absolute Sound.


Now, maybe. But they weren't when they started

That's why the second type (Stereophile and The Absolute
Sound) were founded.


But, they both sold out to their equipment vendors, one way or the other.

For a long time neither of the
latter two carried any advertising at all. I remember
more than once, either harry Pearson or Gordon Holt
coming right out and saying that such-and-such was a
piece of s__t.


It's been a long time since I've seen that!


Agreed, but irrelevant to the point - which you seem to have wandered away
from.

Of course, today, SR and HF are long gone, and now
Stereophile and TAS are THE mainstream US hi-fi
publications and both are owned by different people than
those who started them and their editorial policies are
much different.


Sound and Vision still has a competitive subscriber base.

Since both carry advertising now, I
cannot say for sure that they too haven't become the
first type that I outlined above.


The hidden agenda all along was that even if they didn't carry ads, they
were dependent on vendor loans.


But they didn't care whether or not they got them. Lots of vendors woauldn't
loan equipment top either. Guess what? Their equipment went un-reviewed.

Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
industry.


Not necessarily a problem as long as they are
constrained by the truth.


By definition, it is a big problem. Have you ever seen a
PR release for a product that extolled that product's
mediocrity? Of course not. To my knowledge, Dynaco never
released any PR information or any specifications which
stated that "Our new ST-120 runs in hard class 'B' and
has a new feature called 'crossover notch distortion'
which we think improves the sound."



AFAIK, those are audiophile myths. I'm still awaiting hard evidence.

And neither SR or HF
would EVER report anything that might put an advertiser's
(or possible advertisers') products in a bad light. HF,
initially, had a policy that they wouldn't publish the
reviews of any piece of equipment that didn't meet the
manufacturer's specs. Later, they changed their policy to
simply not mentioning any shortfalls in performance that
they encountered (it was mostly this policy, according to
Gordon Holt, that caused him to quit HF and eventually
found Stereophile).. Then there was Julian Hirsch. Mr.
Hirsch, who "reviewed" equipment for Stereo Review for
more than 30 years, apparently never met an audio
component that he didn't like.


Wrong. It was well known that they received a lot of equipment for which
they never published reviews, for one reason or the other. They simply
followed the polite rule that if they couldn't say something good, they
published nothing.


Which is different from what I said, how? If you only review equipment that
you like and don't review equipment that you don't like , or that isn't very
good, is it not going to be perceived by the reader that you never reviewed a
piece of equipment that you didn't like? That should be obvious.

His tag line, which
summed-up almost every review he ever wrote: "Of course,
the (name and model of unit under test goes here) like
all modern (preamps, amplifiers, receivers, CD players,
tuners, you name it) has no sound of it's own...", became
somewhat of a audiophile joke for years.


We found that the joke was on the audiophiles - the characteristic sounds
that they staked their billfolds on mysteriously went away when they
couldn't see what they were listening to.


Not true at all and only somewhat true today.

His reviews were
so uncritical that they weren't worth reading by anybody
except the manufacturer, their PR firm, and their
dealers.


Sez a lot of high enders who have no doubt been mislead by their prejudices
over the year.

Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
true for the last 8-10 years.

I don't know what reliable basis you have for making
that claim.


The reliable basis is that without the computer-based
design tools employed by modern circuit designers, it was
difficult to make amplifying circuits perfect.


There is no need to make amplifying circuits perfect.

We did DBTs that showed that the circuit diagrams in the 1968 RCA transistor
manual produced sonically transparent power amps.


Permit me to doubt those results.

Many designers tried to *improve* on their sonics, and some of us even
invested in those stories, but they just weren't true.

Each had
its own character, which reflected the tastes of its
designer(s).


A hypothesis that has failed virtually every DBT that was done to support
it.

Nowdays, most amps converge on being
extremely neutral and do so because the tools allow them
to do that easily.


Since 1968, if not earlier.



That's either complete balderdash or you and I have VASTLY different criteria
for neutrality and transparency. I suspect the latter.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 29, 1:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.

Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Playbac=

k
chain":

"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Au=

dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.



It =A0is always far better for people who believe in the non-existence or
rarity of sonically transparent audio gear to do the testing and obtain p=

eer
review for their papers.


No not really. It's best for scientists who are diciplined enough to
know that they must play devil's advocate to their own prejudices if
they know those prejudices to do these sorts of tests. It isn't which
side of the fence one sits on that counts but their self awareness and
self dicipline.


Where are the peer reviewed articles that support your many claims about
puported new technology super turntables, arms and cartrdiges, Scott?


There are no studies I know of on the subject. IOW science, real
science hasn't weighed in on the subject. I didn't wave the science
flag when I made my assertions about vinyl cutting and playback
technology.

Let us know if you come up with any peer reviewed studies on amplifier
transparency. When you do you can let that science flag fly high.
Let's see what kind of meaningful body of evidence you can drum up.

  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 29, 1:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.

Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Playbac=

k
chain":

"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Au=

dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.


Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL out.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
instances where "if you accept the premise..." The premise being whether or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
propositions.



  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New vs Vintage

Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=
t.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 3:55=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 29, 1:14=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.


Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Play=

bac=3D
k
chain":


"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution=

Au=3D
dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.


Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=

t.
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Scott" wrote in message



Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.


Your first error is the false assertion that any paper that is not
peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.

Your second error is ignoring the fact that as thin as scientific support
for a critical view of audiophile myths may be, its infinitely more than the
scientific support for audiophile myths.

Not something one can
stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in
defense of a particular subjective opinion on the
audibility of things. No scientist worth their salt would
make any definitive claims as have been made based on
this body of evidence.


Yet another error. In fact modern audio technology as we know it is entirely
based on the existing body of scientific evidence. High end audio wisdom if
applied to recent audio or video advances would result in products that are
completely impractical.

For example, you can pay under $10 for a 4 meter HDMI cable that provides
you with a perfect digital video, network and audio signal. If you prefer
high end audio "science" you can pay $229 for a Monster "1000HD Ultimate
High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet" that delivers the identical same bits.


  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:06:35 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=

t.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =

so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=

er or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
propositions.


William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
heartbeat.

Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
explanation? That it does or that it does not?

That it does not seems to require a great deal of esoteric explanation
as well as solid, repeatable reasons not yet in evidence. That it does
is more-or-less self-evident as it seems to have done in the past and
will likely continue to do so in the future.

Now, please give some clear, cogent and specific reasons why this
should not be so. And such reasons should withstand rigorous testing,
of course.

I am no great fan of DBT as the full-and-final explanation of anything
audio - as I believe that such tests are far too short to prove the
full spectrum of how audio systems, parts or pieces interact with
different individuals over time. What sounds good in a test setting
over a few hours may not at home over a few days/weeks/months (nor is
that necessarily due to the quality of the equipment either). But it
is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually make a
difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
Sadly.


There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes sighted and
expectational bias from the equation. The test participants simply do not
know which of the two units being compared they are listening to at any given
point. Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of those tests on faith.
It seems to be taken for granted that if there is a difference between the
sound of two components, that these differences will be immediately apparent
at the switch point. I.E., one second you are listening to component A, the
next, component B. Since humans have such a poor aural memory (what we
remember about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound which we take
note of as we listen, not the sound itself), Any difference between the sound
of the two components should be the most noticeable at that point. Now, I
know that this works fine for speakers - they all sound so different that
those differences stick-out like a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect
that differences between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges. Perhaps analog tape
recorders would exhibit similar results, I don't know.

It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and DACs that I start to
get uneasy with the process. All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat
frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from
the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortion
that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive. These
include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),
dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are both
addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
vanishingly low in modern analog devices.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such as
this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings,
while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same region.
But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? Some kind of
heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in a
DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
statistically no difference between the two devices? Would this result in a
difference that might only show itself in long-term listening? These are
questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate.
And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over? That's a question
that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - once
the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.

  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:40:59 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 30, 3:55=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 29, 1:14=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.


Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Play=

bac=3D
k
chain":


"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution=

Au=3D
dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.


Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=

t.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =

so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=

er or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
propositions


Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
evidence in the world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not something
one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
yet to show otherwise.


To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on the
ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground. Most AES
papers are only available from the AES web site and they cost money. If one
is an AES member they cost $5 to download each, if one is NOT an AES member,
these research papers cost $20 each to download. The Meyer/Moran paper to
which Arny keeps referring is one of the few that's available to download for
free (but not from the AES) and, of course, it supports Arny's position on
this issue which doesn't hurt his argument at all. 8^)





  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:21:40 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message



Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.


Your first error is the false assertion that any paper that is not
peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.

Your second error is ignoring the fact that as thin as scientific support
for a critical view of audiophile myths may be, its infinitely more than the
scientific support for audiophile myths.

Not something one can
stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in
defense of a particular subjective opinion on the
audibility of things. No scientist worth their salt would
make any definitive claims as have been made based on
this body of evidence.


Yet another error. In fact modern audio technology as we know it is entirely
based on the existing body of scientific evidence. High end audio wisdom if
applied to recent audio or video advances would result in products that are
completely impractical.

For example, you can pay under $10 for a 4 meter HDMI cable that provides
you with a perfect digital video, network and audio signal. If you prefer
high end audio "science" you can pay $229 for a Monster "1000HD Ultimate
High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet" that delivers the identical same bits.



Can't argue that last bit, Arny. we are of a single mind on that subject,
anyway. I know where to get HDMI cables cheap that are not only as good as
the expensive ones, they are IDENTICAL (as in from the same assembly line) to
some of the expensive ones. One of my favorite examples is the 1 meter
"premium" Toslink Cable that Audio Advisor sells for $55. The identical
cable, down to the last detail (the machined aluminum ferrules on each end)
is available from a web-based cable store for 1/10th that price! I buy all of
my cables from this on-line source, and they are all excellent quality. I
especially like their audio interconnects. Well made using high-quality
materials and incredibly inexpensive (you couldn't make one this cheaply).

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 10:21=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the =A0world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.


Your first error is the false assertion that any paper that is not
peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.


I never said it was "invalid" so your error is misattributing an
assertion to me.
here is what I quoted on the subject with the link.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to
decide which research results should be published in a scientific
journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers
to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers)
before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in
scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use
and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of
research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about
the
existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.


Sense About Science believes that peer review is an essential arbiter
of scientific quality and that information about the status of
research results is as important as the findings themselves. We have
a
very serious commitment to popularising an understanding of how
scientific quality is assessed."

Basically if it isn't peer reviewed it's anecdotal or junk. It may or
may not be valid. It's not something to stand on while waving the
science flag.




Your second error is ignoring the fact that as thin as scientific support
for a critical view of audiophile myths may be, its infinitely more than =

the
scientific support for audiophile myths.


This would be an error in math on your part not any sort of error on
my part. I do like the fact that you play your prejudices by calling
the things in question myths. At least we can see where your biases
are. The *fact* is there is anecdotal evidence going both ways. anyone
with a basic understanding of probabilities would see that there is no
"infinite" odds as to which is more likely to be true should there
ever be any meaningful scientifically valid body of evidence to shed a
light on the subject.



Not something one can
stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in
defense of a particular subjective opinion on the
audibility of things. No scientist worth their salt would
make any definitive claims as have been made based on
this body of evidence.


Yet another error.


No this is quite true.Scientists are far more cautious with their
conclusions even when they have a body of evidence that is an order
several magnitudes more substantial than the body of evidence
pertaining to the things we are talking about here. Just read the
conclusions of any mainstream scientific study and you will see the
sort of tempured conclusions real scientists draw from very careful
studies that are far better conducted than the sort of DBTs audio
objectivists tend to hang their hats on.



  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Scott" wrote in message

On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.


Your first error is the false assertion that any paper
that is not peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.


I never said it was "invalid"


You implied it about as clearly as you could.

here is what I quoted on the subject with the link.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by
scientists to decide which research results should be
published in a scientific journal. The peer review
process subjects scientific research papers to
independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific
experts (peers) before they are made public.



So let's cut to the chase Scott. Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper
that supports your oft-repeated audiophile myths?

Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper that shows that LP playback
equipment technical performance has advanced substantially since say 1985?

Where is the peer reviewed paper to support your past claim that digitial
audio sounds like something is missing because of the space between the
samples?

What about your claims that LP-generated audible distortion has a high
probability of being euphonic?

Where is the peer reviewed paper showing that 44/16 PCM is insufficient to
transparently capture audio signals?



  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New vs Vintage

Please note the interpolations. Please forgive the cynicism
expressed.


[ Please attribute your quotations. --dsr ]


William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
heartbeat.


Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
explanation? That it does or that it does not?


Exactly the same answer. Either it does or it does not. Despite what
one may or may not be told. That one is told a phenomenon exists does
not make it so. Not even a little bit. That one is told something does
not exist does not make that so either.

But it is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually ma=

ke a
difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
Sadly.


There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes sighted and
expectational bias from the equation. The test participants simply do not
know which of the two units being compared they are listening to at any g=

iven
point. Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of those tests on fa=

ith.

Faith is not part of the equation. Using the term "faith" requires
that one does not believe the test ab initio - see "closely held
belief and other forms of revealed religion" above. Either one trusts
ones ears or one does not. And if one trusts ones ears, faith is not
part of the equation. If one does not, then one is as a lamb on the
altar ready for slaughter - no further discussion required.

It seems to be taken for granted that if there is a difference between th=

e
sound of two components, that these differences will be immediately appar=

ent
at the switch point.


I would posit that the 'immediately' needs to be defined. Some fairly
subtle things may take more than a very few seconds of switching back
and forth. Shortly, certainly. And level matching is absolutely
critical for this test to be valid.

I.E., one second you are listening to component A, the
next, component B. Since humans have such a poor aural memory (what we
remember about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound which we =

take
note of as we listen, not the sound itself), Any difference between the s=

ound
of the two components should be the most noticeable at that point. Now, I
know that this works fine for speakers - they all sound so different that
those differences stick-out like a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect
that differences between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges.


Been there - yes, they do.

Perhaps analog tape
recorders would exhibit similar results, I don't know.


Yes, they do.

It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and DACs that I star=

t to
get uneasy with the process.


Why? Either you hear something that you can predict and identify with
greater than 50:50 odds, or you do not. If you do not, then there is
no difference - to you. And at that time.

All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat =A0
frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed fr=

om
the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortio=

n
that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive.


Either you will hear it or you will not. One of my favorite examples
is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the 2N3055 output transistors. Great
measurements, sounded like glass-in-a-blender. With a few basic mods,
it became a (barely) reasonable unit. Measurements are not necessarily
the final issue. What one hears is the issue. And I betcha that even
you with a severe head-cold wearing ear-muffs could pick an early-
version Dynaco from _any_ other amp in a DBT nine times in ten.

These
include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otal=

a),
dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are bo=

th
addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
vanishingly low in modern analog devices.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such=

as
this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings=

,
while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same reg=

ion.

I read a lot of blather created by writers who have to justify their
paychecks. I do not read information based on an opinion supported by
observable facts. I also note that these same writers are bat-sh*t
terrified of DBT as it would pretty much wipe out their species if
adopted. And so will do all-and-everything-they-can to debunk it.

But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? =A0Some k=

ind of
heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and eve=

n if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in =

a
DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
statistically no difference between the two devices?


Yep. exactly that. And the problem with that would be?

Would this result in a
difference that might only show itself in long-term listening?


Perhaps. Even possibly likely. And for any number of reasons.

These are
questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate=

..
And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle th=

at
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?


Of course not. Obsession is the realm of closely held beliefs and
revealed religion.

That's a question
that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - o=

nce
the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.


Not really. If only audio enthusiasts would stick to what their ears
tell them, enjoy what their ears tell them and behave only based on
what their ears tell them then the concept of DBT or not-DBT is
entirely irrelevant - unless one is attempting to write doctrine and
tenets of faith.

But keep in mind that entire industries are based on the concept that
these differences *necessarily* even when inaudible. exist. Further
that they are necessary issues for discussion. Keep in mind that
Parmedis got to *Ex nihilo, nihil fit* even before Occam.

DBT will ferret out differences. Some more quickly than others. But it
will ferret them out. It WILL NOT tell you which is better, worse or
more indifferent than the other. Only that there is (are) (a)
difference(s). DBT is a means to screen. End of Validity.

What you experience at home over the long term is not relevant to what
DBT can tell you. THAT is based on what your ears tell you. No more.
No less. And DBT was never meant to be anything more than a detailer
of differences-if-any - more so - those differences-if-any audible (or
not) to the target testers.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Rockinghorse Winner[_6_] Rockinghorse Winner[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default New vs Vintage

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Audio Empire wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:06:35 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=

t.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =

so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=

er or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
propositions.


William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
heartbeat.

Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
explanation? That it does or that it does not?

That it does not seems to require a great deal of esoteric explanation
as well as solid, repeatable reasons not yet in evidence. That it does
is more-or-less self-evident as it seems to have done in the past and
will likely continue to do so in the future.

Now, please give some clear, cogent and specific reasons why this
should not be so. And such reasons should withstand rigorous testing,
of course.

I am no great fan of DBT as the full-and-final explanation of anything
audio - as I believe that such tests are far too short to prove the
full spectrum of how audio systems, parts or pieces interact with
different individuals over time. What sounds good in a test setting
over a few hours may not at home over a few days/weeks/months (nor is
that necessarily due to the quality of the equipment either). But it
is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually make a
difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
Sadly.


There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes sighted and
expectational bias from the equation. The test participants simply do not
know which of the two units being compared they are listening to at any given
point. Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of those tests on faith.
It seems to be taken for granted that if there is a difference between the
sound of two components, that these differences will be immediately apparent
at the switch point. I.E., one second you are listening to component A, the
next, component B. Since humans have such a poor aural memory (what we
remember about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound which we take
note of as we listen, not the sound itself), Any difference between the sound
of the two components should be the most noticeable at that point. Now, I
know that this works fine for speakers - they all sound so different that
those differences stick-out like a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect
that differences between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges. Perhaps analog tape
recorders would exhibit similar results, I don't know.

It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and DACs that I start to
get uneasy with the process. All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat
frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from
the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortion
that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive. These
include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),
dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are both
addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
vanishingly low in modern analog devices.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such as
this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings,
while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same region.
But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? Some kind of
heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in a
DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
statistically no difference between the two devices? Would this result in a
difference that might only show itself in long-term listening? These are
questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate.
And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over? That's a question
that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - once
the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.


Business concept:

DBT site

Popular models of amps, speakers and other components are pitted against
each other in controlled DBT's.

Income from adverts, subscription-only section with additional DBT's,
subscription newsletter...

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/Mutt 1.5.21 slrn 0.9.9p1 Irssi 0.8.15
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 3:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =

the
ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground.


Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent. It's only possible to argue,
over and over again, that "evidence is thin on the ground" if your
basic posture is one of willful ignorance. The only place the evidence
is thin is inside the heads of people who don't want to know.

The scientific case against the general audibility of differences
between cables/amps/DACs is based on a century and a half of
psychoacoustic research into the limits of human hearing perception.
We have a pretty good idea of the magnitudes of differences that are
and are not discernible. And we know that the differences between
audio components other than transducers generally do not exceed those
levels. (We also know what the common exceptions are.) As a general
rule, nobody publishes DBTs of audio components in scholarly journals
because the findings don't ever tell us anything we didn't already
know, and such journals are not looking for old news.

Arny keeps posting the same article because it's the rare exception,
and one can understand why the editors might have found it
interesting. (I'll bet it's gotten more hits than anything else
they've published in years.) But I don't think you'll find an article
in JAES--or even an AES conference paper--comparing consumer CD
players. What scientist would bother?

DBTs of audio components are useful tools for testing differences when
you aren't sure they're audible, and are especially useful if you
really want to prove to the skeptics that you heard a difference,
which is why objectivists always demand them of subjectivists. But
they aren't the basis of the case, and they aren't the way real
scientists have answered the question.

bob

  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 12:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:40:59 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 30, 3:55=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):


On Mar 29, 1:14=3D3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.


Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs a=

re
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Pl=

ay=3D
bac=3D3D
k
chain":


"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resoluti=

on=3D
=A0Au=3D3D
dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support an=

y
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.


Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL=

ou=3D
t.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month =

or =3D
so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of th=

ose
instances where "if you accept the premise..." =3DA0The premise being =

wheth=3D
er or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products a=

nd
propositions


Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
evidence in the =A0world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not somethin=

g
one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
yet to show otherwise.


To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =

the
ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground. Most AE=

S
papers are only available from the AES web site and they cost money. If o=

ne
is an AES member they cost $5 to download each, if one is NOT an AES memb=

er,
these research papers cost $20 each to download. The Meyer/Moran paper to
which Arny keeps referring is one of the few that's available to download=

for
free (but not from the AES) and, of course, it supports Arny's position o=

n
this issue which doesn't hurt his argument at all. 8^)- Hide quoted text =

-


I'm not being unfair at all. Even with the AESJ (which honestly is a
pretty light weight peer reviewed journal in the world of science)
there are no papers that offer DBTs of amplifiers, or preamplifiers or
many of the other things that are so often debated here. Audiophiles
will believe what they will about the subject. It does not matter
really. But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject. At least
not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies. Who knows what
proprietary data exists in the confines of private industry.
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:54:08 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):
snip
All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat =A0
frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed fr=

om
the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortio=

n
that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive.


Either you will hear it or you will not. One of my favorite examples
is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the 2N3055 output transistors. Great
measurements, sounded like glass-in-a-blender. With a few basic mods,
it became a (barely) reasonable unit. Measurements are not necessarily
the final issue. What one hears is the issue. And I betcha that even
you with a severe head-cold wearing ear-muffs could pick an early-
version Dynaco from _any_ other amp in a DBT nine times in ten.


... Well, finally someone who really KNOWS. Tell that to Mr. Kruger who
believes that the ST-120 was "totally transparent" and sounds just like any
modern amplifier (which is to say it has no "sound at all). Where were you
when we were discussing this amp a few days ago? 8^)

These
include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otal=

a),
dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are bo=

th
addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
vanishingly low in modern analog devices.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such=

as
this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings=

,
while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same reg=

ion.

I read a lot of blather created by writers who have to justify their
paychecks. I do not read information based on an opinion supported by
observable facts. I also note that these same writers are bat-sh*t
terrified of DBT as it would pretty much wipe out their species if
adopted. And so will do all-and-everything-they-can to debunk it.


I neither endorse nor debunk such conclusions. I merely stated them as a
prelude to asking the question "if these differences do, indeed, exist, to
what could we attribute them?"

But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? =A0Some k=

ind of
heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and eve=

n if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in =

a
DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
statistically no difference between the two devices?


Yep. exactly that. And the problem with that would be?


The problem is that in such a case, the DBT would have told us NOTHING about
the amps in question.

Would this result in a
difference that might only show itself in long-term listening?


Perhaps. Even possibly likely. And for any number of reasons.


Exactly.

These are
questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate=

.
And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle th=

at
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?


Of course not. Obsession is the realm of closely held beliefs and
revealed religion.


But religion, in any guise, is a very personal thing. Each person must decide
for him or herself what to believe. That goes for the religious aspect of
audio as well as the religious aspects of a supreme being.

That's a question
that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - o=

nce
the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.


Not really. If only audio enthusiasts would stick to what their ears
tell them, enjoy what their ears tell them and behave only based on
what their ears tell them then the concept of DBT or not-DBT is
entirely irrelevant - unless one is attempting to write doctrine and
tenets of faith.


Yes, and some most assuredly are doing just that!

But keep in mind that entire industries are based on the concept that
these differences *necessarily* even when inaudible. exist. Further
that they are necessary issues for discussion. Keep in mind that
Parmedis got to *Ex nihilo, nihil fit* even before Occam.


DBT will ferret out differences. Some more quickly than others. But it
will ferret them out. It WILL NOT tell you which is better, worse or
more indifferent than the other. Only that there is (are) (a)
difference(s). DBT is a means to screen. End of Validity.


That is very true, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

What you experience at home over the long term is not relevant to what
DBT can tell you. THAT is based on what your ears tell you. No more.
No less. And DBT was never meant to be anything more than a detailer
of differences-if-any - more so - those differences-if-any audible (or
not) to the target testers.


Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist where their ARE
differences. That's what I'm wondering.

  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes
sighted and expectational bias from the equation. The
test participants simply do not know which of the two
units being compared they are listening to at any given
point.


The fact that the participants know which of the two units being compared
they are listening to at any given point makes sighted evaluations
exceedingly questionable.

The true situation that in the past 30+ years of struggling with the problem
of listening tests, we still really do not have any viable alternatives
other than sighted or double blind. The sighted tests are obviously
greviouisly flawed, so we are *stuck* with doing DBTs until we come up with
something better.

Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of
those tests on faith.


I think you're speaking for yourself. There seems to be some problem with
intellectually and emotionally connecting with DBTs.

It seems to be taken for granted
that if there is a difference between the sound of two
components, that these differences will be immediately
apparent at the switch point.


How many times do I have to deny that by both assertion and example?


I.E., one second you are
listening to component A, the next, component B.


So what is the alternative? People have done tests with cross-fades. No
special joy.

You're not telling the whole story or even just the true story. Even when
instantaneous switching is used, listeners are offered as many switch points
as they think they need. There is no need to make a decision immediately
after a switch point. The listener can audition as many switch points as he
wishes before reaching a conclusion. This is specifically how I do my own
DBTs - I switch back and forth looking for the switch points where the
differences are as clear as possible for me. I base each conclusion (trial)
on auditioning many comparisons.


Since
humans have such a poor aural memory (what we remember
about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound
which we take note of as we listen, not the sound
itself),


This is very true, but it impacts *any* reasonble listening test. Sighted
evaluations *solve* the aural memory problem by simply revealing the desired
answer at every point in the evaluation. That's no solution at all!

Any difference between the sound of the two
components should be the most noticeable at that point.


The fact of the matter is that many audible differences are not most
noticable at any particular point. Finding these points is part of the skill
of making listening comparisons.

It is well known that often, by managing the music and how the listener
times his comparisons, a test can be biased to have either a null outcome
or the most sensitive outcome possible. This is sometimes apparent even in
sighted evaluations.

There's no need to judge sighted evaluations by just sound quality, so many
of the problems that are inherent in reliable listening comparisons are
masked.


Now, I know that this works fine for speakers - they all
sound so different that those differences stick-out like
a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect that differences
between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges.


Yes speakers are relatively easy to discern, as Harman's years of public
reports of loudspeaker listening tests have shown many. We showed over 30
years ago that phono cartridges are often harder to separate by means of
just listening, and sometimes they are impossible to separate.

Perhaps analog tape recorders would exhibit similar
results, I don't know.


Over 10 years ago my friend Dave Carlstrom, who happens to be a world-class
analog tape recorder technican showed that the effects of even just one
generation on the best analog machines ever built can be detected.

It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and
DACs that I start to get uneasy with the process.


All that has been settled for decades by many experimenters. We showed over
20 years ago in the Stereo Review CD player and amplfier DBTs that most CD
players and most SS amplfiiers are impossible to detect. Equipment
performance has improved just a little since then. I revisited those tests
about a decade ago and was unable to obtain more positive results by
upgrading music choice and listener training.

All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat frequency response and
vanishingly low distortion these days, so that eliminates
two very important variables in the human auditory
perception pantheon.


IOW what we know about their technology supports the outcomes of our
listening tests.

The two things that we most readily
notice, frequency response aberrations and high amounts
of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from the
equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types
of distortion that we can't easily measure, but to which
the ear is sensitive.


That's a hypothesis whose advocates have already had over 30 years to
provide scientific evidence to support. Can we all say "no show"?


These include, transient
intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),


That was quickly identified as a special case of nonlinear distortion over
30 years ago. High frequency twin tone IM tests are probably the most
sensitive way to detect the underlying problem.

dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc.


Dielectric absorbtion is easy to dismiss on the grounds that it is a very
subtle effect and also that its consequences have simply never be reliably
detected in a good listening test. It was the fabrication of a
publicity-hungry tech writer who rode it into a nice job with a
semiconductor manufactuer.

But these are controversial.


Worse than that, they are dismissed for lack of relevancy to the problem of
listening to reproduced music.

Many audio experts maintain that
they don't exist, and in either case, whether you believe
them to be a factor, or not, they are both addressed in
most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again
is vanishingly low in modern analog devices.


Agreed.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the
top octaves, such as this device lends a sandpaper-like
quality to the reproduction of strings, while this other
device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same
region.


IOW poetry, not proper technical reports.

But what could account for these differences?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

noise modulation?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

Some kind of heretofore undiscovered distortion?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the
switch point in a DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving
rise to the result that there is statistically no
difference between the two devices?


Its the old question - how many years do you search for the pot of gold at
the end of the rainbow, the Lost Ark, or the Holy Grail?

Would this result in
a difference that might only show itself in long-term
listening?


Long term listening tests are now well understood. You yourself explained
how and why they desensitize listeners in your post, above.

These are questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term
listening debate.


I suspect that its all about your long-cherished beliefs. BTW those are
beliefs that I held 40 years ago, but they got incinerated by a lot of
careful listening starting about 35 years ago.

And this brings up
one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?


In general, of course not.

That's a question that every audio enthusiast is going to
have to answer for themselves - once the DBT issue is put
to rest, once and for all, of course.


The DBT issue won't be resolved for every audiophile until hopes stops
springing eternal, and until there's no more money to be made by convincing
people to suspend disbelief.


  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist where their ARE
differences. =A0That's what I'm wondering.


DBT will only ferret out audible differences to *that* audience at
*that* moment during *that* test.

There may be many inaudible differences that will not be revealed by
DBT. And any long-term effects from otherwise undiscernable
differences may not be revealed during a short-term test. So what? DBT
was never designed to do any more than compare items under mostly
entirely artificial conditions over a very short period of time. As a
process it cannot, nor was it ever meant to determine what you like,
dictate what you should (or should not) hear nor much of anything
else.

Are you able to tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi? Both are
highly sugared brown, fizzy soft drinks that are far more alike than
not. Yet billions are spent on differentiation. Audio electronics are
far more similar than Coke and Pepsi - so the effort at
differentiation becomes much more strident and includes far less humor
or cleverness but much more bitterness. As is also stated of Academia:
The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

Imagine a world where all this blather just went away - and
individuals purchased and listened to only what they liked based only
on what they heard? Entire industries (albeit mostly small ones) would
crumble and die overnight - starting with the interconnect industry.
It would not be pretty, but it would be well-deserved.

Aside and personal: I am grateful each and every day for all this
blather. It provides a near-infinite source of discarded/used/vintage
equipment at almost laughable prices for me to play with.

Aside II: The Dynaco ST-120 had some very real design flaws when it
first escaped. But at under one watt and with a fairly neutral input
signal it tested OK. Stress it even slightly and the flaws became
obvious. It took Dynaco two iterations to correct the most audible
flaws and a switchover of the both driver and output transistors to
make it both passible and stable. But keep in mind it was quite the
thing in its day - a (relatively) cheap (then) high-power amp that did
not require an 18-wheeler to transport.

I happen to keep an ST-120, full modifications, of course. Not a bad
little amp for testing components as they come off the bench. Not what
I would put on the front line, however.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA



  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Either you will hear it or you will not.


Are you sure about that?

One of my
favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
like glass-in-a-blender.


Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally unsupported
audiophile myth?



  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 6:14=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin o=

n the
ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground.


Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent. It's only possible to argue,
over and over again, that "evidence is thin on the ground" if your
basic posture is one of willful ignorance. The only place the evidence
is thin is inside the heads of people who don't want to know.

The scientific case against the general audibility of differences
between cables/amps/DACs is based on a century and a half of
psychoacoustic research into the limits of human hearing perception.
We have a pretty good idea of the magnitudes of differences that are
and are not discernible. And we know that the differences between
audio components other than transducers generally do not exceed those
levels. (We also know what the common exceptions are.) As a general
rule, nobody publishes DBTs of audio components in scholarly journals
because the findings don't ever tell us anything we didn't already
know, and such journals are not looking for old news.

Arny keeps posting the same article because it's the rare exception,
and one can understand why the editors might have found it
interesting. (I'll bet it's gotten more hits than anything else
they've published in years.) But I don't think you'll find an article
in JAES--or even an AES conference paper--comparing consumer CD
players. What scientist would bother?

DBTs of audio components are useful tools for testing differences when
you aren't sure they're audible, and are especially useful if you
really want to prove to the skeptics that you heard a difference,
which is why objectivists always demand them of subjectivists. But
they aren't the basis of the case, and they aren't the way real
scientists have answered the question.



If this is all true then it should be quite trivial to cite this vast
body of peer reviewed studies that support "the scientific case
against the general audibility of differences
amps" Please cite the specific studies and show how they prove the
assertion. Please help me with my "willful scientific ignorance."
Without it this is just more scientific flag waving with no real
science behind it. Talk is cheap. Show me the goods. Hard to call my
alleged "ignorance" willful if you are forth coming with citations of
the studies that will set me straight.

  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:09:03 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 30, 12:29=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:40:59 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Mar 30, 3:55=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):


On Mar 29, 1:14=3D3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
studies that support your assertions on audibility and
inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.


Those would relate to negative hypothesis.


Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs a=

re
inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Pl=

ay=3D
bac=3D3D
k
chain":


"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resoluti=

on=3D
=A0Au=3D3D
dio
Playback."
Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007


Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support an=

y
of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
something.


Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL=

ou=3D
t.
He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month =

or =3D
so.
It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of th=

ose
instances where "if you accept the premise..." =3DA0The premise being =

wheth=3D
er or
not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products a=

nd
propositions


Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
evidence in the =A0world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not somethin=

g
one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
yet to show otherwise.


To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =

the
ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground. Most AE=

S
papers are only available from the AES web site and they cost money. If o=

ne
is an AES member they cost $5 to download each, if one is NOT an AES memb=

er,
these research papers cost $20 each to download. The Meyer/Moran paper to
which Arny keeps referring is one of the few that's available to download=

for
free (but not from the AES) and, of course, it supports Arny's position o=

n
this issue which doesn't hurt his argument at all. 8^)- Hide quoted text =

-


I'm not being unfair at all.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to intimate that YOU were being unfair. I'm saying
that since I'm the one who brought up the fact that Arny has posted this same
URL numerous times, that *I* was the one who needed back-off a bit and
acknowledge that Arny has posted the URL because the number of AES studies
that are readily available on the internet are far and few between and it's
not any shortcoming on Arny's part that he keeps posting the same one.


Even with the AESJ (which honestly is a
pretty light weight peer reviewed journal in the world of science)
there are no papers that offer DBTs of amplifiers, or preamplifiers or
many of the other things that are so often debated here. Audiophiles
will believe what they will about the subject. It does not matter
really. But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject. At least
not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies. Who knows what
proprietary data exists in the confines of private industry.


Honestly, it's probably not a high priority in the scientific world. DBTs are
difficult set-up correctly and a single test doesn't really mean anything
statistically, you have to do many. This costs money and research grants for
this kind of, let's face it, frivolous pursuit are probably not forthcoming.


  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Scott" wrote in message


I'm not being unfair at all. Even with the AESJ (which
honestly is a pretty light weight peer reviewed journal
in the world of science) there are no papers that offer
DBTs of amplifiers, or preamplifiers or many of the other
things that are so often debated here.


The reason is pretty obvious. Neither Consumer's Union nor the AES are
confused about the fact that they are completely different organizations.

The AES (as well as the ASA and IEEEE) are concerned with general principles
and findings that would apply to large classes of audio products, not
comparisons of very narrow implementations of those principles.

Audiophiles will believe what they will about the subject.


The web has made it far easier to spike audiophile myths and make that
information generally available.

It does not matter really.


Some of us would hope that we might help save music lovers a ton of money
that might otherwise be spent on products with no reliable sonic value
whatsoever.

But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject.


Except it has, and only a tiny minority of true believers continue believe
in the face of considerably contrary evidence.

At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.


I see Scott that you still aren't answering questions about peer-reviewed
scientific studies justifying your personal investments in *questionable*
audio panaceas.

Who knows what proprietary data exists in the confines of private
industry.


We know that in general the purveyers of audio gear whose functional
principles are myth and legend don't do experiments that result in reliable
data. They just spin 21st century fairy tales and take their money where
they can still get it. Bedini Ultra-Super Clarifiers with a scoop of ice
cream and a cherry, anybody? ;-)


  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Kulin Remailer Kulin Remailer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default New vs Vintage

bob wrote:

Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent.


Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:

I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularly
good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainly a
bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to upset
him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'm
hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on and
his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures which
were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turning
the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person with
no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend knew
before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poor
quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.




  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 30, 1:12=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.
Your first error is the false assertion that any paper
that is not peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.

I never said it was "invalid"


You implied it about as clearly as you could.


No Arny not only did I not say it. I made it clear that is not what I
said. And still you continue to hang your hat on this
misrepresentation of my position. I am not going to argue with you
about what i said since it is clear and has been posted twice and I am
not going to argue with you about what I meant. I am the authority
over what I meant. You don't get to change that. I did not say nor did
I imply that it was "invalid."


=A0here is what I quoted on the subject with the link.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by
scientists to decide which research results should be
published in a scientific journal. The peer review
process subjects scientific research papers to
independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific
experts (peers) before they are made public.


So let's cut to the chase Scott.



I already did cut to the chase Arny and I am done with your
misrepresentations of it. If you did not understand what was meant by
the quote on peer review and how it relates to the constant
inapropriate flag waving by the so called objectivists then that is on
you. I can not make you understand it. But I am done arguing with you
about what I meant by it.


Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper
that supports your oft-repeated audiophile myths?


1. the question is too vague and obviosuly prejudicial. This has
already been pointed out.
2. There is no body of evidence on the matter that either supports or
conflicts with many of the things you are prejucially calling
audiophile myths including the idea that there is such a thing as
amplifiers with a distinctive sonic signature. This has also been
pointed out.
3. The fact that there is this lack of such evidence that would be
considered anything more than junk and/or anecdotal simply supports my
assertion that the science flag waving is way out of line for anyone
with an understanding and respect for real science. You can posture
and try to use misdirection all you want. It won't change that
reality.



Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper that shows that LP playback
equipment technical performance has advanced substantially since say 1985=

?

Why do you continue to try to use this misdirection Arny? I have
already addressed this issue. I never waved the science flag. You did.
The onus is on you to support your assertions with science or put away
your science flag. I never waved the science flag on the subject of
vinyl cutting and playback. I am done addressing this red herring as
well.
[Snip tyhe rest of the red herrings]

If you want to assert that your positions are scientifically valid you
have to show us the science. pointing to a lack of evidence on these
subjects does not help your case Arny. It actually supports mine, that
being that science hasn't weighed in on these matters in any
meaningful way and that we are dealing with differing opinions neither
of which have much of any real science behind them. Please stop asking
me to show you the sicence that clearly isn't there since I have not
misrepresented the scientific validity of my opinions. Only one of us
is standing on the sicence soap box Arny and that is you. So you are
the one with the burden of showing us the science upon which you
allgedly stand.

  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 31, 9:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



Either you will hear it or you will not.


Are you sure about that?

One of my
favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
like glass-in-a-blender.


Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally unsupported
audiophile myth?


Arnie:

As I suggested to Audio Empire - I bet even you with a raging head-
cold wearing ear-muffs could pick a first-issue unmodified ST-120 out
of a crowd 9 times out of 10. Between the power-supply sag, the driver
current sag over a very few watts and the tendency for it to oscillate
at just above audio frequencies when driven by more than about 1/2V of
input - it sounded like glass in a blender. At less than one watt
output and with a very bland input - say Gregorian Chant - it sounded
quite nice. But the original had serious design/execution flaws. They
were eventually corrected - but the were also very real.

Either you will hear it or you will not is a tautology - therefore
true in all cases. I did not state either a difference is there or it
is not... There are always differences - just not necessarily
audible.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 31, 6:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I'm not being unfair at all. Even with the AESJ (which
honestly is a pretty light weight peer reviewed journal
in the world of science) there are no papers that offer
DBTs of amplifiers, or preamplifiers or many of the other
things that are so often debated here.


The reason is pretty obvious. Neither Consumer's Union nor the AES are
confused about the fact that they are completely different organizations.


that is a nice bit or irrelevant information since I made no mention
of any consumers union,



The AES (as well as the ASA and IEEEE) are concerned with general princip=

les
and findings that would apply to large classes of audio products, not
comparisons of very narrow implementations of those principles.


You are not really in any position to be speaking for the AES.

Audiophiles will believe what they will about the subject.


The web has made it far easier to spike audiophile myths and make that
information generally available.


And yet when called on it you offer one paper from the AES. Just
one.Given that the web has made this task so much easier I would
expect a great deal more substance from you.


It does not matter really.


Some of us would hope that we might help save music lovers a ton of money
that might otherwise be spent on products with no reliable sonic value
whatsoever.


Sorry but I sincerely doubt this is about saving people from
themselves. I am quite confident that these debates are ego based.


But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject.


Except it has, and only a tiny minority of true believers continue believ=

e
in the face of considerably contrary evidence.


Ah this evidence that no one can come up with despite, as you say, the
web making it far easier to access. Looks like a whole lot of
posturing to me. All these posts so far and one AES paper on one
aspect of audio. That's it. Not one peer reviewed paper on amplifier
sound or any of the other issues you call audiophile myths.

I am going to make a prediction right here and right now. You won't
come up with any peer reviewed scientific evidence that will support
any of your opinions on amplifier sound. Call me psychic ;-)



At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.


I see Scott that you still aren't answering questions about peer-reviewed
scientific studies justifying your personal investments in *questionable*
audio panaceas.


That is ironic Arny. Given you were the one waving the science flag
and has come up with nothing to support your opinions on the same
subjects.


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default New vs Vintage

On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
bob wrote:
Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent.


Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:

I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularl=

y
good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainl=

y a
bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to ups=

et
him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'=

m
hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on a=

nd
his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures wh=

ich
were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turn=

ing
the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person w=

ith
no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend kne=

w
before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poo=

r
quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.


What decade did this happen? I can't think of any tube gear that has
been built in the past forty years that would have a loudness button
and tone controls. Not sure it is fair to represent the equipment per
se as "awful sounding." If any equipment, no matter how good it is, is
poorly set up it will sound bad. You can't blame the tubes on bad
sound if the speakers were wired out of phase. Nor can you blame the
dealer for the user's misuse of the equipment unless the dealer had
been explicitely invited to set it up. Also I'd like to know what the
equipment was. If the preamp were tubed and had a loudness button and
tone controls I can't think of anything *new* that matches that
description. If the dealer (or dealers, you haven't even made it clear
that all the equipment was purchased at one place) is selling vintage
equipment it's not really the same thing as selling new stuff which is
often but not always supported with home visits for set up.

  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:55:55 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist where their ARE
differences. =A0That's what I'm wondering.


DBT will only ferret out audible differences to *that* audience at
*that* moment during *that* test.


Of course, but that's not the question. The REAL question is if a DBT returns
a null result, is it because their are no differences or because the
listening group found no differences? You know, most people aren't trained
listeners like most audiophiles. audio enthusiasts train temselves to listen
for minutia that the average person neither cares about nor listens for. An
analogous example of this kind of "selective attention to detail" that I am
talking about can be found in a friend of mine. He's a classic film buff who
worked in the industry for years. He hates modern film/TV making because they
use so much of what he calls "non-stabilized hand-held camera work" (meaning
that the camera is not locked-down for the shot nor is the operator using a
steady-cam). He won't watch any movie of TV show that he says uses it. Me? I
don't notice it unless it's pointed out to me, and even then I don't
particularly care. I'm watching the story unfold, not watching the cinema
technique. I suspect that many listeners are the same way. This minutia that
audio types obsess and agonize over is simply not noticed by by most people.
They just listen to the music. This lack of critical facility when it comes
to the technical side of music reproduction is manifest in the acceptance of
low bit-rate MP3. Most listeners don't notice (or care) that these MP3s don't
sound very good - and they make up the bulk of music listeners in the world
today.

There may be many inaudible differences that will not be revealed by
DBT. And any long-term effects from otherwise undiscernable
differences may not be revealed during a short-term test. So what? DBT
was never designed to do any more than compare items under mostly
entirely artificial conditions over a very short period of time. As a
process it cannot, nor was it ever meant to determine what you like,
dictate what you should (or should not) hear nor much of anything
else.


That's sort of my point. The absence of evidence (in this case a DBT null
result) is not evidence of absence.

Are you able to tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi? Both are
highly sugared brown, fizzy soft drinks that are far more alike than
not. Yet billions are spent on differentiation.


You bet I can tell! They taste NOTHING alike. I love Coke, it's delicious (to
me), but I can't even drink a Pepsi. Many times I've ordered a Coke in a
restaurant and been unknowingly served Pepsi. I would always do a spit-take
on the Pepsi and say to the waiter: "This is Pepsi, I ordered Coke" and got
the response: "Yes sir, we serve only Pepsi products." I have NEVER been
wrong. OTOH, I don't drink soft drinks at all any more (haven't had a Coke in
3 years) so I don't know if I could still tell the difference, but Pepsi
always had a salty after-taste to me that was unmistakeable and Coke lacked.

Audio electronics are
far more similar than Coke and Pepsi - so the effort at
differentiation becomes much more strident and includes far less humor
or cleverness but much more bitterness. As is also stated of Academia:
The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.


I don't disagree with that assessment at all. I have heard differences in
amps as a result of a DBT but just a few minutes with either amp in question,
and those differences are quickly forgotten because they weren't important in
the first place. This wasn't always the case, but it is now. Anytime I hear
an audio enthusiast say that they don't like the sound of this new amplifier
or prefer the sound of that one, I look at them with jaundiced eye, and the
term "anal retentive personality" comes to mind. Every modern amp that I've
auditioned sounds just fine under normal listening conditions, and that
included the super-cheap $200 Behringer A-500! (just leave the volume
controls on the front panel at maximum!).

Imagine a world where all this blather just went away - and
individuals purchased and listened to only what they liked based only
on what they heard? Entire industries (albeit mostly small ones) would
crumble and die overnight - starting with the interconnect industry.
It would not be pretty, but it would be well-deserved.


Amen, brother!

Aside and personal: I am grateful each and every day for all this
blather. It provides a near-infinite source of discarded/used/vintage
equipment at almost laughable prices for me to play with.


Yep, that's true

Aside II: The Dynaco ST-120 had some very real design flaws when it
first escaped. But at under one watt and with a fairly neutral input
signal it tested OK. Stress it even slightly and the flaws became
obvious. It took Dynaco two iterations to correct the most audible
flaws and a switchover of the both driver and output transistors to
make it both passible and stable. But keep in mind it was quite the
thing in its day - a (relatively) cheap (then) high-power amp that did
not require an 18-wheeler to transport.


Yes, I had one, but in those days, what we then called "the transistor sound"
was said to be a good thing. Of course the "transistor sound" turned out to
be all kinds of distortion, including oodles of odd-order harmonic and
slew-induced distortion.

I happen to keep an ST-120, full modifications, of course. Not a bad
little amp for testing components as they come off the bench. Not what
I would put on the front line, however.


Well, I dumped my early example when I heard a used Citation II against it. I
sold the ST-120 to a buddy who just wanted the power and didn't care about
it's sonic shortfalls and bought the Citation. I was a much happier young
listener after that.



  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Either you will hear it or you will not.


Are you sure about that?

One of my
favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
like glass-in-a-blender.


Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally unsupported
audiophile myth?



Just about everybody (except, apparently, you) who ever owned one. That
consensus of opinion is reliable enough to me. I know what I heard then, and
I know what I hear now. Last year I heard an ST-120 A/B'd against a new Audio
Research 220 W/channel tube amp in a DBT (just for laughs). We got the laughs
all right. The ST-120 sounded DREADFUL, and more than that, it sounded just
like I remember is sounding!

  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:52:46 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes
sighted and expectational bias from the equation. The
test participants simply do not know which of the two
units being compared they are listening to at any given
point.


The fact that the participants know which of the two units being compared
they are listening to at any given point makes sighted evaluations
exceedingly questionable.

The true situation that in the past 30+ years of struggling with the problem
of listening tests, we still really do not have any viable alternatives
other than sighted or double blind. The sighted tests are obviously
greviouisly flawed, so we are *stuck* with doing DBTs until we come up with
something better.

Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of
those tests on faith.


I think you're speaking for yourself. There seems to be some problem with
intellectually and emotionally connecting with DBTs.

It seems to be taken for granted
that if there is a difference between the sound of two
components, that these differences will be immediately
apparent at the switch point.


How many times do I have to deny that by both assertion and example?


I.E., one second you are
listening to component A, the next, component B.


So what is the alternative? People have done tests with cross-fades. No
special joy.

You're not telling the whole story or even just the true story. Even when
instantaneous switching is used, listeners are offered as many switch points
as they think they need. There is no need to make a decision immediately
after a switch point. The listener can audition as many switch points as he
wishes before reaching a conclusion. This is specifically how I do my own
DBTs - I switch back and forth looking for the switch points where the
differences are as clear as possible for me. I base each conclusion (trial)
on auditioning many comparisons.


Since
humans have such a poor aural memory (what we remember
about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound
which we take note of as we listen, not the sound
itself),


This is very true, but it impacts *any* reasonble listening test. Sighted
evaluations *solve* the aural memory problem by simply revealing the desired
answer at every point in the evaluation. That's no solution at all!

Any difference between the sound of the two
components should be the most noticeable at that point.


The fact of the matter is that many audible differences are not most
noticable at any particular point. Finding these points is part of the skill
of making listening comparisons.

It is well known that often, by managing the music and how the listener
times his comparisons, a test can be biased to have either a null outcome
or the most sensitive outcome possible. This is sometimes apparent even in
sighted evaluations.

There's no need to judge sighted evaluations by just sound quality, so many
of the problems that are inherent in reliable listening comparisons are
masked.


Now, I know that this works fine for speakers - they all
sound so different that those differences stick-out like
a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect that differences
between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges.


Yes speakers are relatively easy to discern, as Harman's years of public
reports of loudspeaker listening tests have shown many. We showed over 30
years ago that phono cartridges are often harder to separate by means of
just listening, and sometimes they are impossible to separate.

Perhaps analog tape recorders would exhibit similar
results, I don't know.


Over 10 years ago my friend Dave Carlstrom, who happens to be a world-class
analog tape recorder technican showed that the effects of even just one
generation on the best analog machines ever built can be detected.

It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and
DACs that I start to get uneasy with the process.


All that has been settled for decades by many experimenters. We showed over
20 years ago in the Stereo Review CD player and amplfier DBTs that most CD
players and most SS amplfiiers are impossible to detect. Equipment
performance has improved just a little since then. I revisited those tests
about a decade ago and was unable to obtain more positive results by
upgrading music choice and listener training.

All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat frequency response and
vanishingly low distortion these days, so that eliminates
two very important variables in the human auditory
perception pantheon.


IOW what we know about their technology supports the outcomes of our
listening tests.

The two things that we most readily
notice, frequency response aberrations and high amounts
of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from the
equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types
of distortion that we can't easily measure, but to which
the ear is sensitive.


That's a hypothesis whose advocates have already had over 30 years to
provide scientific evidence to support. Can we all say "no show"?


These include, transient
intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),


That was quickly identified as a special case of nonlinear distortion over
30 years ago. High frequency twin tone IM tests are probably the most
sensitive way to detect the underlying problem.

dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc.


Dielectric absorbtion is easy to dismiss on the grounds that it is a very
subtle effect and also that its consequences have simply never be reliably
detected in a good listening test. It was the fabrication of a
publicity-hungry tech writer who rode it into a nice job with a
semiconductor manufactuer.

But these are controversial.


Worse than that, they are dismissed for lack of relevancy to the problem of
listening to reproduced music.

Many audio experts maintain that
they don't exist, and in either case, whether you believe
them to be a factor, or not, they are both addressed in
most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again
is vanishingly low in modern analog devices.


Agreed.

You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the
top octaves, such as this device lends a sandpaper-like
quality to the reproduction of strings, while this other
device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same
region.


IOW poetry, not proper technical reports.

But what could account for these differences?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

noise modulation?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

Some kind of heretofore undiscovered distortion?


Listener bias, plain and simple.

This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the
switch point in a DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving
rise to the result that there is statistically no
difference between the two devices?


Its the old question - how many years do you search for the pot of gold at
the end of the rainbow, the Lost Ark, or the Holy Grail?

Would this result in
a difference that might only show itself in long-term
listening?


Long term listening tests are now well understood. You yourself explained
how and why they desensitize listeners in your post, above.

These are questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term
listening debate.


I suspect that its all about your long-cherished beliefs. BTW those are
beliefs that I held 40 years ago, but they got incinerated by a lot of
careful listening starting about 35 years ago.

And this brings up
one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?


In general, of course not.

That's a question that every audio enthusiast is going to
have to answer for themselves - once the DBT issue is put
to rest, once and for all, of course.


The DBT issue won't be resolved for every audiophile until hopes stops
springing eternal, and until there's no more money to be made by convincing
people to suspend disbelief.



Arny, a small criticism, if you will allow it. Most of your comments above
were made prematurely. IOW, if you'd have finished reading the section before
responding, you would have found most of your responses to be either
redundant or irrelevant to the conversation. For instance, when I asked the
rhetorical question, "But what could account for these differences?" you
answered it With "Listener bias, plain and simple." yet I wasn't going there.
I was headed toward the fact that these differences aren't reasonable in the
light of the specifications of most modern amplifiers. You eliminate
frequency response aberrations, you eliminate noise, you reduce distortion to
indiscernible levels, and what's left? Not much, if anything.

Also, please cite your opinions as opinions and not facts. Your kind of
certitude, while backed by a lot of experience, certainly shows the strength
of your convictions, but it is just that: evidence of your belief in your
opinions.

  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:07:38 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 30, 1:12=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message




Which merely points to the fact that the body of
scientifically valid evidence in the world of
audiophilia is painfully thin.
Your first error is the false assertion that any paper
that is not peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.
I never said it was "invalid"


You implied it about as clearly as you could.


No Arny not only did I not say it. I made it clear that is not what I
said. And still you continue to hang your hat on this
misrepresentation of my position. I am not going to argue with you
about what i said since it is clear and has been posted twice and I am
not going to argue with you about what I meant. I am the authority
over what I meant. You don't get to change that. I did not say nor did
I imply that it was "invalid."


=A0here is what I quoted on the subject with the link.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by
scientists to decide which research results should be
published in a scientific journal. The peer review
process subjects scientific research papers to
independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific
experts (peers) before they are made public.


So let's cut to the chase Scott.



I already did cut to the chase Arny and I am done with your
misrepresentations of it. If you did not understand what was meant by
the quote on peer review and how it relates to the constant
inapropriate flag waving by the so called objectivists then that is on
you. I can not make you understand it. But I am done arguing with you
about what I meant by it.


Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper
that supports your oft-repeated audiophile myths?


1. the question is too vague and obviosuly prejudicial. This has
already been pointed out.
2. There is no body of evidence on the matter that either supports or
conflicts with many of the things you are prejucially calling
audiophile myths including the idea that there is such a thing as
amplifiers with a distinctive sonic signature. This has also been
pointed out.
3. The fact that there is this lack of such evidence that would be
considered anything more than junk and/or anecdotal simply supports my
assertion that the science flag waving is way out of line for anyone
with an understanding and respect for real science. You can posture
and try to use misdirection all you want. It won't change that
reality.



Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper that shows that LP playback
equipment technical performance has advanced substantially since say 1985=

?

Why do you continue to try to use this misdirection Arny? I have
already addressed this issue. I never waved the science flag. You did.
The onus is on you to support your assertions with science or put away
your science flag. I never waved the science flag on the subject of
vinyl cutting and playback. I am done addressing this red herring as
well.
[Snip tyhe rest of the red herrings]

If you want to assert that your positions are scientifically valid you
have to show us the science. pointing to a lack of evidence on these
subjects does not help your case Arny. It actually supports mine, that
being that science hasn't weighed in on these matters in any
meaningful way and that we are dealing with differing opinions neither
of which have much of any real science behind them. Please stop asking
me to show you the sicence that clearly isn't there since I have not
misrepresented the scientific validity of my opinions. Only one of us
is standing on the sicence soap box Arny and that is you. So you are
the one with the burden of showing us the science upon which you
allgedly stand.


Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that since
there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he calls "audiophile
myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be found supporting those
propositions, while many of the rest of us takes that lack of evidence to
mean simply that serious science hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they
likely to do so). You can't find evidence if you don't look for it. Now, If
Arny wishes to fund a peer-reviewed university study on Audiophile Mythology,
I'm sure he could find someone to step forward and tackle the issue, but I'm
equally sure that aside from that eventuality, funding from the usual sources
is going to be hard to come by.

  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:58:43 -0700, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

bob wrote:

Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent.


Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:

I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularly
good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainly a
bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to upset
him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'm
hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on and
his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures which
were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turning
the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person with
no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend knew
before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poor
quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.



This type of person is often the type who participate in DBTs as well, rank
laymen. People like him and college students who were weened on MP3s and
ear-buds are the average "listener". I wouldn't take a null result from these
people with anything but a grain of salt for all the tea in Ceylon.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:22:27 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
bob wrote:
Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
illiteracy in order to remain coherent.


Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:

I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularl=

y
good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainl=

y a
bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to ups=

et
him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'=

m
hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on a=

nd
his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures wh=

ich
were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turn=

ing
the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person w=

ith
no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend kne=

w
before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poo=

r
quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.


What decade did this happen? I can't think of any tube gear that has
been built in the past forty years that would have a loudness button
and tone controls. Not sure it is fair to represent the equipment per
se as "awful sounding." If any equipment, no matter how good it is, is
poorly set up it will sound bad. You can't blame the tubes on bad
sound if the speakers were wired out of phase. Nor can you blame the
dealer for the user's misuse of the equipment unless the dealer had
been explicitely invited to set it up. Also I'd like to know what the
equipment was. If the preamp were tubed and had a loudness button and
tone controls I can't think of anything *new* that matches that
description. If the dealer (or dealers, you haven't even made it clear
that all the equipment was purchased at one place) is selling vintage
equipment it's not really the same thing as selling new stuff which is
often but not always supported with home visits for set up.


Still, though, his conclusions about the listening acumen of the average
person are valid. This guy was listening to, apparently, lousy sound and
didn't notice it. He obviously was NOT a (self) trained audio enthusiast and
just doesn't know what to listen for. Or perhaps he just doesn't care. But I
find that most audio laymen are in this category. They don't know what it's
supposed to sound like, because to them an audio system is just an appliance,
like their TV or their refrigerator or their car. The rich tend to buy more
expensive appliances than we average working stiffs, but that doesn't mean
that they either appreciate it or even know how to use it. How many times
have you seen some rich guy in an expensive Porsche who obviously has no
concept about how to drive it? Why would an audio system in such a person's
hands be any different?



  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default New vs Vintage

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

snip


Some of us would hope that we might help save music lovers a ton of money
that might otherwise be spent on products with no reliable sonic value
whatsoever.

But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject.


Except it has, and only a tiny minority of true believers continue believe
in the face of considerably contrary evidence.


Arny, the people in this world who care about sound AT ALL are a tiny
minority!

At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.


I see Scott that you still aren't answering questions about peer-reviewed
scientific studies justifying your personal investments in *questionable*
audio panaceas.

Who knows what proprietary data exists in the confines of private
industry.


We know that in general the purveyers of audio gear whose functional
principles are myth and legend don't do experiments that result in reliable
data. They just spin 21st century fairy tales and take their money where
they can still get it.


I asked Nelson Pass that question at the Burning Amp Festival in SF a few
months ago. His answers might surprise you. His research into semiconductor
devices alone is quite sophisticated. And he does do DBTs.

Bedini Ultra-Super Clarifiers with a scoop of ice
cream and a cherry, anybody? ;-)






Well, there is audio mythology and there is audio mythology and there are
certain things that do fall into that category, for sure (expensive speaker
cables the diameter of a baby's leg, high-priced interconnects, "active"
cables, expensive power cords, myrtlewood blocks to set on top of your
equipment, ceramic lifts to raise your $500/ft speaker cables off of the
floor, green pens to absorb the stray laser light bouncing around inside your
CDs, etc) and that's unfortunate.

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default New vs Vintage

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



snip


The true situation that in the past 30+ years of struggling with the
problem
of listening tests, we still really do not have any viable alternatives
other than sighted or double blind. The sighted tests are obviously
greviouisly flawed, so we are *stuck* with doing DBTs until we come up
with
something better.


snip


The Oohashi test published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Neurophysiology a
few years ago, and brought to the attention of this and other groups by me,
included a double-blind test that took pains to put the listener in a frame
of mind/body similar to listening to music at home. The listening results,
which were statistically significant supposedly inaudible stimulus, were
then correlated with actual physiological phenomenon via very sophisticated
neurological monitoring. Yet despite all this, Arny and his online kinfolk
disparaged the validity of the test and the results, and apparently judging
by the quote above, still fail even to recognize that this published
exception proves his conclusion "no viable alternatives" to be wrong.

As a follow-up to the above controversy, I showed in theoretical form how a
test could be devised using sample sizes and approaches borrowed from
double-blind food testing that would do the same thing (in fact, bore
substantial ressemblance in some ways to the Oohashi approach, but on a
larger scale). Again, rather than spurring some serious thinking and
back-and-forth on the merits of the approach, the approach was met with
denial and redicule.

One must question how serious those who decry the lack of "science" really
are. Their approach strikes me as just as "religous" as their supposed
antagonists, the dreaded "audiophile".


  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Mar 31, 6:58 am, Audio Empire
wrote:

Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist
where their ARE differences. That's what I'm wondering.


DBT will only ferret out audible differences to *that*
audience at *that* moment during *that* test.


The error here is the apparent claim that only DBTs have this problem. In
fact *any* listening test has this problem. The probable reason why people
seem to be so unaware of how this problem affects sighted evaluations is
that they are being distracted from developing reliable insightful critical
judgements by the well-known problem with false positives in sighted
evaluations.

There may be many inaudible differences that will not be
revealed by DBT.


For pretty obvious reasons we can absoultely guarantee that no listening
test, blind or otherwise, will reveal inaudible differences. If a difference
is inaudible, how would *any* listening test reveal it?

And any long-term effects from otherwise
undiscernable differences may not be revealed during a
short-term test.


At this point we know for sure that long term listening evaluations only
serve to obscure the audibility of subtle audible differences due to how
human memory for subtle differences works. It is very time-sensitive.


So what?


If you realize the great potential that a listening test has to fail to
detect audible problems due to the timing issues first raised, in this post,
suddenly test equipment-based evaluations can have a lot of charm.


DBT was never designed to do
any more than compare items under mostly entirely
artificial conditions over a very short period of time.


In fact any evaluation of audio components is inhrently artificial. Nobody
ever listens to two different components and switches between them when they
are listening for pure pleasure. People normally don't think about how the
equipment sounds when they are listening for pleasure.

(We may be dealing with a person who is driven by their personal agenda to
ascribe these common problem to just DBTs.)

As a process it cannot, nor was it ever meant to
determine what you like, dictate what you should (or
should not) hear nor much of anything else.


The fact of the matter is that listening tests don't, can't, and were never
intended to dictate anything to us. They are just a means for developing
information that goes into a more complex decision-making process.

Are you able to tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi?


I've done pretty well on ABX tests of that kind.

Both are highly sugared brown, fizzy soft drinks
that are far more alike than not.


Yeah, but the contents of the products are vastly different. Coke is a
little more bitter and has a tad of a citrus flavor.

Yet billions are spent on differentiation.


I'll bet money that analytical chemical analysis can tell the difference in
a heartbeat.

Audio electronics are far more similar than Coke and Pepsi


Agreed. As has been pointed out there are scamsters out there that try to
sell identical audio components for vastly higher prices.



  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Mar 31, 9:56 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



Either you will hear it or you will not.


Are you sure about that?

One of my
favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
like glass-in-a-blender.


Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally
unsupported audiophile myth?


Arnie:

As I suggested to Audio Empire - I bet even you with a
raging head- cold wearing ear-muffs could pick a
first-issue unmodified ST-120 out of a crowd 9 times out
of 10.


That's an assertion, not proof or even reliable evidence.

Between the power-supply sag,


You may not be aware of it, but the power supplies of virtually every power
amp sags.

the driver current sag over a very few watts


Measurements? Circuit analysis?

and the tendency for it to oscillate at just above audio frequencies when
driven by
more than about 1/2V of input


Measurements? Circuit analysis?

it sounded like glass in a blender.



This sounds like a situation that should yield positve results from just
about any DBT. Where are they?



  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default New vs Vintage

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Either you will hear it or you will not.


Are you sure about that?

One of my
favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
like glass-in-a-blender.


Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally
unsupported audiophile myth?


Just about everybody (except, apparently, you) who ever
owned one.


People said similar things about the CDP 101, but tests on several samples
of them also come up empty. There are subtle audible differences, but
nothing that can honestly be called "glass-in-a-blender".

That consensus of opinion is reliable enough to me.


I'm looking for reliable technical evidence, not the results of a public
opinion survey, BTW, where is that public opinion survey? ;-)

I know what I heard then, and I know what I hear
now. Last year I heard an ST-120 A/B'd against a new
Audio Research 220 W/channel tube amp in a DBT (just for
laughs). We got the laughs all right. The ST-120 sounded
DREADFUL, and more than that, it sounded just like I
remember is sounding!


Got any bench tests showing that both power amps met origional vendor specs?
I know for sure that my ST-120 does so.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 0 September 28th 09 05:23 PM
FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 0 September 2nd 09 05:31 AM
FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 0 June 8th 09 09:24 PM
FS: Vintage Audio Tubes and other Vintage Electronic Parts [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 0 February 21st 09 03:51 AM
Semi OT - vintage amplifier for vintage system? Max Holubitsky Vacuum Tubes 4 November 6th 03 06:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"