To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


-MIKE

Okay Mike,

So how long is too long. Is the cut off for meaningful
comparisons 10 seconds, 5 minutes, one hour, one day,
what?

Are results better the quicker the switching? Or can the
switching be too quick? If so what is the lower cut off
for too quick?

Dennis

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


-MIKE

I also have another question Mike.

Surely you have had the experience of hearing something
that seemed okay or even better at first. Yet upon long
term use it had qualities that wore upon you. Eventually
making you dislike something about listening to it.

How does that fit with your statement that long term
comparison is useless?

I think long and short term comparisons have their place.
And are useful for different things.

Dennis

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


-MIKE

By long term I mean morning to afternoon or one day to the next. This
is enough time for many changes to occur that would effect the perceived
sound. If a switch can be made within an hour, any changes would most
likely be valid. Another factor that can have an effect is the number
of people in the room (consider how an audience effects the sound in a
concert hall). Let's face it, listening position, speaker position, as
well as all the conditions mentioned in my first post will have a
greater effect than any change in cables etc. If someone wants to spend
money to improve their system, spend it on better speakers.


-MIKE

Responding to your second question - yes I have listened to a recording
that I liked at first and then later did not like the sound. Sometimes
however, a few days or weeks later, I liked it again. Was it me or the
listening conditions?


-MIKE

Dennis Moore wrote:
I also have another question Mike.

Surely you have had the experience of hearing something
that seemed okay or even better at first. Yet upon long
term use it had qualities that wore upon you. Eventually
making you dislike something about listening to it.

How does that fit with your statement that long term
comparison is useless?

I think long and short term comparisons have their place.
And are useful for different things.

Dennis

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


-MIKE


I think quick switching is best for detecting differences. When
differences exist, long term testing can be used for determining
preferences, or how much one really likes that piece of equipment.
Usually, in addition to the sound, the user interface, aethestics, etc.
are part of the long term test experience. Although in my experience,
long term only needs to be a few hours or maybe a day or two, not weeks
or months.

To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.



I suppose it depends on how long term. If the term is long enough one would
expect some of the variables you mention to cancel out to a large degree. The
laws of averages would dictate that.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.



I suppose it depends on how long term. If the term is long enough one would
expect some of the variables you mention to cancel out to a large degree.
The
laws of averages would dictate that.

Don't forget human adaptation. Think of the time when a fan is turned on in a
room. At first it seems very loud but after 20 minutes its a normal part of the
soundscape and the room will 'seem' very quiet for several minutes when the fan
is turned off; even when it sounded perfectly average prior to the first time
the fan was turned on.

IMO the long-term things that change ones' opinion about the 'sound' of
components in the long run are typically due to appearance or operating
features and not truly changes in sound quality.

Of course, there can also be the "more" factor (excessive highs in speakers,
for example) where 'impressiveness' can become irritating over time.

On 19 Oct 2003 16:12:11 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.

Quick switching tells you some things but you've got it the wrong way
around. Short auditions are biased by exactly those uncontrollable
variations you describe, resulting in a 'sampling error.'. Long term
comparisons average out those uncontrollable variables.

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 19 Oct 2003 16:12:11 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.

Quick switching tells you some things but you've got it the wrong way
around. Short auditions are biased by exactly those uncontrollable
variations you describe, resulting in a 'sampling error.'. Long term
comparisons average out those uncontrollable variables.

My understanding is that 'quick switching' actually refers to the speed of the
switching, not the length of the listening intervals before and
after performing the switch. Quick switching is required because reliable
audio memory for small differences is measured in seconds; hence
manually switching DUTs in and out of the comparison is problemantic.
Quick switching protocols (e.g. using an ABX box) solve this.

As for sampling error, wouldn't multiple short interval auditions
over time reduce that just as well as long-term comparisons?



--
-S.

(---MIKE---) wrote:
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


My experience is that short term comparisons are meaningless and long term is
the only way to sort out the variables you mention. For example, my first
impression of a component is rarely the same as my long term impression. My
expectations, mood etc. influence the first impression. After listening for a
few days or weeks, taking notes, comparing back and forth to my own reference
component, I can get a good feel for the new component's sonic signature. I do
use (relatively) quick switching with careful level matching when changing from
one to the other component.
Regards,
Mike

On 20 Oct 2003 16:41:42 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

My understanding is that 'quick switching' actually refers to the speed of the
switching, not the length of the listening intervals before and
after performing the switch. Quick switching is required because reliable
audio memory for small differences is measured in seconds; hence
manually switching DUTs in and out of the comparison is problemantic.
Quick switching protocols (e.g. using an ABX box) solve this.

I have nothing against 'quick switching,' if the system makes it
possible, since one can make different comparisons easier and
repeatedly. OTOH, it often takes long auditions to attend to all the
parameters of the sound. On each quick switch, I can only attend to
one or two.

As for sampling error, wouldn't multiple short interval auditions
over time reduce that just as well as long-term comparisons?

Sure but that way lies madness. Or, at least, lack of musical
enjoyment.

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 20 Oct 2003 16:41:42 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

My understanding is that 'quick switching' actually refers to the speed of
the
switching, not the length of the listening intervals before and
after performing the switch. Quick switching is required because reliable
audio memory for small differences is measured in seconds; hence
manually switching DUTs in and out of the comparison is problemantic.
Quick switching protocols (e.g. using an ABX box) solve this.

I have nothing against 'quick switching,' if the system makes it
possible, since one can make different comparisons easier and
repeatedly. OTOH, it often takes long auditions to attend to all the
parameters of the sound. On each quick switch, I can only attend to
one or two.

Well sure and it takes more than one program tocover the sonic waterfront as
well. I use a set of 63 program segments with specially chosen programs that
are an audio obstacle course and a listening method (Listening Technology)
where I evaluate orthogonal sound quality factors (grouped into Tonal, Spatial,
Dynamics & Distortion and Noise & Distractions) separately with a fixed known
reference (high-quality system in either 2-channel or surround mode) which does
not require extended exposure (1-2 hours is perfectly satisfactory) of hours,
days or weeks.


As for sampling error, wouldn't multiple short interval auditions
over time reduce that just as well as long-term comparisons?

Sure but that way lies madness. Or, at least, lack of musical
enjoyment.

Kal

In evaluation mode enjoyment is not the end goal; a fair evaluation is. I find
that I can often enjoy sub-standard sound depending on the venue and some music
is so good that it's enjoyable no matter what the source.

The other useful considerations gained by using common source material in
segment format for every evaluation a 1) it evens the playing field
program-wise and 2) after several thousand exposures the listener loses his
attachment to the program. For example I used to find it impossible to use
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because the song brought up stromg emotional
strings that interfered with my evaluation. After several thousand exposures to
2:00 minutes of it I can easily 'hear' the sound and not the 'song.'

Surely, and likewise I am sure you spent more than an evening deciding
upon your mate as well. A short and methodical test will make for a
foolish decision when you have a longer period to examine a host of
other aspects. Mike Kuler is right here. Think about it, when you are
looking at a new car, a new house, when you really want to be sure...
flip a coin or let the dust settle?
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Mkuller" wrote in message
...
(---MIKE---) wrote:
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control
will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind,
fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc.,
etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the
aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


My experience is that short term comparisons are meaningless and
long term is
the only way to sort out the variables you mention. For example, my
first
impression of a component is rarely the same as my long term
impression. My
expectations, mood etc. influence the first impression. After
listening for a
few days or weeks, taking notes, comparing back and forth to my own
reference
component, I can get a good feel for the new component's sonic
signature. I do
use (relatively) quick switching with careful level matching when
changing from
one to the other component.
Regards,
Mike

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:44:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

Well sure and it takes more than one program tocover the sonic waterfront as
well. I use a set of 63 program segments with specially chosen programs that
are an audio obstacle course and a listening method (Listening Technology)
where I evaluate orthogonal sound quality factors (grouped into Tonal, Spatial,
Dynamics & Distortion and Noise & Distractions) separately with a fixed known
reference (high-quality system in either 2-channel or surround mode) which does
not require extended exposure (1-2 hours is perfectly satisfactory) of hours,
days or weeks.

Perfectly acceptable but exended listening followed by a similar
battery is often more revealing.

In evaluation mode enjoyment is not the end goal; a fair evaluation is. I find
that I can often enjoy sub-standard sound depending on the venue and some music
is so good that it's enjoyable no matter what the source.

I find that applies to most music that I like but I still prefer it to
sound good.

The other useful considerations gained by using common source material in
segment format for every evaluation a 1) it evens the playing field
program-wise and 2) after several thousand exposures the listener loses his
attachment to the program. For example I used to find it impossible to use
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because the song brought up stromg emotional
strings that interfered with my evaluation. After several thousand exposures to
2:00 minutes of it I can easily 'hear' the sound and not the 'song.'

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind, fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc., etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.



I suppose it depends on how long term. If the term is long enough one
would
expect some of the variables you mention to cancel out to a large degree.
The
laws of averages would dictate that.

And at that particular time of conducting the quick switching test the *very
same factors* which you object to enter the picture. In other words you will
have to perform the quick switch listening test under all the different
factors you mention, e.g.; temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure,
state of mind,...etc. etc. How do you know that the results of the quick
switching tests will be different at 65 degrees F Vs 85 degrees F? So in
effect you would be ruling out any real differences according to your own
hypothesis.

"Mkuller" wrote in message
...

My experience is that short term comparisons are meaningless and long term
is
the only way to sort out the variables you mention. For example, my first
impression of a component is rarely the same as my long term impression.
My
expectations, mood etc. influence the first impression.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is exactly how I feel and what I've learned
from "testing" out both long and short timed evaluations over the course of
nearly half a century. So long as one is living and breathing, *and
thinking* our sense of any matter is not, and cannot, be expected to be the
same from one second to the next.

Uptown Audio wrote:
Surely, and likewise I am sure you spent more than an evening deciding
upon your mate as well. A short and methodical test will make for a
foolish decision when you have a longer period to examine a host of
other aspects.

True, but that's another issue...the aspect under consideration
here is the sound. And with long term comparison, you probably
*are* taking into account factors that don't really relate to the
sound.

Mike Kuler is right here. Think about it, when you are
looking at a new car, a new house, when you really want to be sure...
flip a coin or let the dust settle?

Comparison of sound is one thing; making a buying decision is another.
It appears to me that ---MIKE--- was talking about comparison of sound.

-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Mkuller" wrote in message
...
(---MIKE---) wrote:
To make long term comparisons between amps, cables, power cords, CD
players, and tweaks make no sense. Elements not under your control
will
change the apparent sound more than anything. I am referring to
temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, state of mind,
fatigue,
alcohol consumption (I guess that IS under your control), etc.,
etc.,
etc. These will all swamp any subtle changes that the
aforementioned
items will cause. Quick switching is the only way.


My experience is that short term comparisons are meaningless and
long term is
the only way to sort out the variables you mention. For example, my
first
impression of a component is rarely the same as my long term
impression. My
expectations, mood etc. influence the first impression. After
listening for a
few days or weeks, taking notes, comparing back and forth to my own
reference
component, I can get a good feel for the new component's sonic
signature. I do
use (relatively) quick switching with careful level matching when
changing from
one to the other component.
Regards,
Mike

--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:44:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

Well sure and it takes more than one program tocover the sonic waterfront as
well. I use a set of 63 program segments with specially chosen programs that
are an audio obstacle course and a listening method (Listening Technology)
where I evaluate orthogonal sound quality factors (grouped into Tonal, Spatial,
Dynamics & Distortion and Noise & Distractions) separately with a fixed known
reference (high-quality system in either 2-channel or surround mode) which does
not require extended exposure (1-2 hours is perfectly satisfactory) of hours,
days or weeks.

Perfectly acceptable but exended listening followed by a similar
battery is often more revealing.


By what criterion? Have you or someone else done a comparison of
long vs short auditions, using some 'known' differences as a
reference?



--
-S.

Steven is correct about what I was talking about. If you want to
compare two different cables, listening to one today and the other
tomorrow will allow the other factors that I mentioned to make more of a
difference than the cables.


-MIKE

(Nousaine) wrote:
In evaluation mode enjoyment is not the end goal; a fair evaluation is. I
find
that I can often enjoy sub-standard sound depending on the venue and some
music
is so good that it's enjoyable no matter what the source.


Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?

The other useful considerations gained by using common source material in
segment format for every evaluation a 1) it evens the playing field
program-wise

Unless you can clearly remember the sound from one evaluation to the next, what
purpose does this serve?

and 2) after several thousand exposures the listener loses his
attachment to the program. For example I used to find it impossible to use
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because the song brought up stromg
emotional
strings that interfered with my evaluation. After several thousand exposures
to
2:00 minutes of it I can easily 'hear' the sound and not the 'song.'


Seems very analytical and counter-productive to me. After all, you're
evaluating 'music reproduction', not tones or sine waves. "It don't mean a
thing if it ain't got that swing."
Regards,
Mike

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:44:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

Well sure and it takes more than one program tocover the sonic waterfront as
well. I use a set of 63 program segments with specially chosen programs that
are an audio obstacle course and a listening method (Listening Technology)
where I evaluate orthogonal sound quality factors (grouped into Tonal,
Spatial,
Dynamics & Distortion and Noise & Distractions) separately with a fixed
known
reference (high-quality system in either 2-channel or surround mode) which
does
not require extended exposure (1-2 hours is perfectly satisfactory) of
hours,
days or weeks.

Perfectly acceptable but exended listening followed by a similar
battery is often more revealing.

That has not been my experience, in general. Typically long exposure allows a
significant level of adaptation to real sonic differences, lessening their
impact. Of course, alleged 'differences' that are base on rumor, personal bias,
ergonomics, appearance or other nin-sonic factors may cause different behavior.


In evaluation mode enjoyment is not the end goal; a fair evaluation is. I
find
that I can often enjoy sub-standard sound depending on the venue and some
music
is so good that it's enjoyable no matter what the source.

I find that applies to most music that I like but I still prefer it to
sound good.

I've never said that it shouldn't. I just mention that there is a lotof music
that is so well written, performed, produced and recorded that it is enjoyable
on practically anything including my father's 62 year old AM radio.


The other useful considerations gained by using common source material in
segment format for every evaluation a 1) it evens the playing field
program-wise and 2) after several thousand exposures the listener loses his
attachment to the program. For example I used to find it impossible to use
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because the song brought up stromg
emotional
strings that interfered with my evaluation. After several thousand exposures
to
2:00 minutes of it I can easily 'hear' the sound and not the 'song.'

Bears repeating

(Mkuller) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote:
In evaluation mode enjoyment is not the end goal; a fair evaluation is. I
find
that I can often enjoy sub-standard sound depending on the venue and some
music
is so good that it's enjoyable no matter what the source.


Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?

Notice I said "evaluation mode" where my focus is on evaluating the sound not
"enjoying" myself. In fact, as a professional listener I often am required to
listen to and evaluate products that may not be the best available.

I often read a reviewer say that he "just started tapping my toes and fell into
the music" somehow justifying that falling off task is a good thing.

The other useful considerations gained by using common source material in
segment format for every evaluation a 1) it evens the playing field
program-wise

Unless you can clearly remember the sound from one evaluation to the next,
what
purpose does this serve?

That's the purpose of using a reference. It allows one to re-calibrate and
evaluate each new product to the reference and not the last product evaluated.

Which is why I calibrate on my reference system prior to specific evaluations
and calibrate as well as I can the reference system with visits to musical
performance venues.

I also do not limit myself to "music" programs. There are plenty of spoken
word, nature and acoustical recordings that are very useful for evaluation
reference.



and 2) after several thousand exposures the listener loses his
attachment to the program. For example I used to find it impossible to use
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because the song brought up stromg
emotional
strings that interfered with my evaluation. After several thousand exposures
to
2:00 minutes of it I can easily 'hear' the sound and not the 'song.'


Seems very analytical and counter-productive to me. After all, you're
evaluating 'music reproduction', not tones or sine waves. "It don't mean a
thing if it ain't got that swing."
Regards,
Mike

Because a good share of my professional business is listening I insist on being
analytical, efficient and reliable when evaluating sound quality of speakers
and audio systems.

When I'm having a good time I can often enjoy a good program spit out of a
horse **** sounding audio system .... such as the PA system at the Palace last
Saturday night where I enjoyed Simon & Garfunkel with special guests the Everly
Brothers.

Later that same evening I enjoyed Susan Tedeschi on Austin City Limits even
when it was delivered in limited 2-channel from DirecTv and I had a few glasses
of Smith & Hook 1999 Cabernet. Ruthie Foster, also on that show, was a very
pleasant surprise.

Did the weakness of the program sound, played back on my reference system,
prevent me from enjoying that show? Nope, I wasn't in SQ Evaluation Mode . But
even when I am my job is to evaluate the sound whatever it is not to

Would it have been more enjoyable in a higher resolution format. Sure. Was it
"unenjoyable" as it was. Nope. It was pretty darn good. It "had that swing."

Regarding "that swing." IMO the Swing is in the program (music and performance)
not the playback equipment. It is true that a superior sound system may bring
the Swing in a more accurate or realistic manner but the musical qualities are
not "produced" by the playback system.

The playback system is only a transmission medium. It has no musical or human
qualities; no rhythm and pace or other mystical characteristics that take weeks
to develop or appreciate. It's either a transparent medium or its not. If not,
the deficiencies can be discovered in a couple hours with a practical,
systematic, analytical listening regimen.

As for sampling error, wouldn't multiple short interval auditions
over time reduce that just as well as long-term comparisons?

It would reduce the effect of somethings just as well IMO. It may not allow you
to address other things though. Listener fatigue will never be addressed in
short auditions no matter how many you do.

On 21 Oct 2003 16:04:00 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Perfectly acceptable but exended listening followed by a similar
battery is often more revealing.


By what criterion? Have you or someone else done a comparison of
long vs short auditions, using some 'known' differences as a
reference?

Not so far as I know. Then again, I have not participated in any DBTs
for many years.

What I have experienced is that after extended listening, a repetition
of the A/B comparisons allows me more subtle evaluations than did the
initial comparisons.

Kal

Fair enough then, I misinterpreted what you were saying. In that case,
I take back what I said about you being correct. What I am saying
here, and I am backed-up by most everyone's common-sense approach to
any purchase decision, and that is when you want to be sure about what
you think that you just heard or saw, you listen or look again. That
takes time to do carefully and eliminates any mistakes that might have
occured in a hurry. It allows other factors, which went overlooked
previously to be discovered. It is not really different at all from a
first date compared to a long romance as much as you might want to
distance it from that analogy. You simply do not have the capacity to
take in everything that something has to offer or may be hiding in a
short test as you do with an extended one. It reveals more benefits,
more flaws, more substance - period. I can't really say that a quick
comparison by switching is bad and that is not what I am trying to say
at all. I find that handy for rather obvious differences and to speed
things up, but not for really more challenging differences and for
long term satisfaction. I like to investigate things further until I
am convinced on several levels rather than to jump to any immediate
conclusion without considering other less obvious variables. Other
than a short attention span, what do you not like about being able to
take longer to make a decision?
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Steven is correct about what I was talking about. If you want to
compare two different cables, listening to one today and the other
tomorrow will allow the other factors that I mentioned to make more
of a
difference than the cables.


-MIKE

(S888Wheel) wrote:

As for sampling error, wouldn't multiple short interval auditions
over time reduce that just as well as long-term comparisons?

It would reduce the effect of somethings just as well IMO. It may not allow
you
to address other things though. Listener fatigue will never be addressed in
short auditions no matter how many you do.

I disagree strongly. A half hour will cause fatique in systems where the tonal
balance errors promotes same. Indeed that's one of the bogus complaints about
controlled listening; it's too stressful.

On 21 Oct 2003 22:46:08 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Perfectly acceptable but exended listening followed by a similar
battery is often more revealing.

That has not been my experience, in general. Typically long exposure allows a
significant level of adaptation to real sonic differences, lessening their
impact.

Yes, adaptation is inevitable and that is exactly what happens with
one's 'reference' system. This turns the tables on it.

Kal

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:59:29 GMT, "Uptown Audio"
wrote:
You simply do not have the capacity to
take in everything that something has to offer or may be hiding in a
short test as you do with an extended one.

That may well be true, but you *can* very easily detect any
*differences* which may exist. Among all but the most psycopathic
cable designs, any such differences will be *way* below audibility.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:18:40 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

"Mkuller" wrote in message
...

My experience is that short term comparisons are meaningless and long term is
the only way to sort out the variables you mention. For example, my first
impression of a component is rarely the same as my long term impression. My
expectations, mood etc. influence the first impression.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is exactly how I feel and what I've learned
from "testing" out both long and short timed evaluations over the course of
nearly half a century. So long as one is living and breathing, *and
thinking* our sense of any matter is not, and cannot, be expected to be the
same from one second to the next.

However, it's probably reasonable to suggest that our mood is more
likely to stay the same over a few minutes than it is over a few days
or weeks, hence the relative merits of long and short-term listening
are not altered by your comments. BTW, none of the above has relevance
to the relative merits of sighted and unsighted comparisons.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Now we are getting closer to what I said in my original post. We are
talking about comparisons - looking for differences between similar (or
not so similar) components. Does cable A sound different than cable B?
You can't tell by using cable A today and cable B tomorrow (unless there
is such a difference that one of them must be defective).


-MIKE

I said


It would reduce the effect of somethings just as well IMO. It may not allow
you
to address other things though. Listener fatigue will never be addressed in
short auditions no matter how many you do.

Tom said


I disagree strongly. A half hour will cause fatique in systems where the
tonal
balance errors promotes same. Indeed that's one of the bogus complaints about
controlled listening; it's too stressful.

I'm not sure a half an hour is all that short a term especially when quick
switching was being discussed. However, I have found several systems that were
not fatiguing in a half hour that were fatiguing in a couple hours. No doubt
some systems are so bad that they are fatiguing in minutes.

(Nousaine) wrote:
When I'm having a good time I can often enjoy a good program spit out of a
horse **** sounding audio system ....

We all can. That's not the point.
snip
Regarding "that swing." IMO the Swing is in the program (music and
performance)
not the playback equipment. It is true that a superior sound system may bring
the Swing in a more accurate or realistic manner but the musical qualities
are
not "produced" by the playback system.

The playback system is only a transmission medium. It has no musical or human
qualities; no rhythm and pace or other mystical characteristics that take
weeks
to develop or appreciate. It's either a transparent medium or its not. If
not,
the deficiencies can be discovered in a couple hours with a practical,
systematic, analytical listening regimen.


Agreed - the system is allowing the composer's and the music's *intent* to come
through. Not all communicate it that well, regardless of their *transparency*.
What good is an evaluation if it misses out on whether the system is
enjoyable and musical? You might as well just read the equipment specs.
Regards,
Mike

(Mkuller) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote:
When I'm having a good time I can often enjoy a good program spit out of a
horse **** sounding audio system ....

We all can. That's not the point.

Then what is?

snip
Regarding "that swing." IMO the Swing is in the program (music and
performance)
not the playback equipment. It is true that a superior sound system may
bring
the Swing in a more accurate or realistic manner but the musical qualities
are
not "produced" by the playback system.

The playback system is only a transmission medium. It has no musical or
human
qualities; no rhythm and pace or other mystical characteristics that take
weeks
to develop or appreciate. It's either a transparent medium or its not. If
not,
the deficiencies can be discovered in a couple hours with a practical,
systematic, analytical listening regimen.
Agreed - the system is allowing the composer's and the music's *intent* to
come
through. Not all communicate it that well, regardless of their
*transparency*.

If the system is transparent .... adds/subtracts nothing ..... how can it
improve or diminish the 'intent' of the artist, songwriter, producer or
production staff?

If it's NOT initially transparent then it can ONLY subtract from the production
intent. That's the missing link in the subjectivist viewpoint.

What good is an evaluation if it misses out on whether the system is
enjoyable and musical? You might as well just read the equipment specs.
Regards,
Mike

If the system transports the original program with sufficient transparency then
it has to be as 'enjoyable, exciting, fullfilling, thought-provoking or
irritating' as the production/artist team intended.

Anything added at the far end is only a single party-end user preference. For
example in enjoy-mode I never listen to 2-channel programs without using one of
the Lexicon Logic 7 modes because it adds a sense of envelopment and spatial
stability and 'realism' that is not contained in the original program.

Just because I 'like' it and it's more enjoyable doesn't subtract from my
reference systems' ability to deliver the original as intended. My 'preference'
is a personal choice.

But, nonetheless, this level of difference does not take hours, days, weeks or
years to fully comprehend.

(Mkuller) wrote in message ...

Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?


Does the music really have an emotional component to it...or is there
an emotional component to the act of listening to music? I.e., is the
emotion in the recording/performance, or is it in the listener? If
it's the latter, no
meaningful evaluation of audio equipment can even address this issue
without losing its objectivity. And if it's the former

...prove it.

(Rhetorical question: if a reviewer didn't enjoy listening to music
through the DUT, why would it earn high scores?)

(Mkuller) wrote
Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal
and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high
but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?


(Buster Mudd)
Does the music really have an emotional component to it...or is there
an emotional component to the act of listening to music? I.e., is the
emotion in the recording/performance, or is it in the listener? If
it's the latter, no
meaningful evaluation of audio equipment can even address this issue
without losing its objectivity. And if it's the former

..prove it.


Have you been to a live performance of music lately? Did it involve you
emotionally? Now listen to a recorded version of the same performance - did it
make you feel the same? If not, what were the differences? Was it the music
or the music reproduced through your equipment tha failed to stir you? The
emotional content is in the music - the composer/musician's intent which is
what music is all about and how it differs from random chords.

(Rhetorical question: if a reviewer didn't enjoy listening to music
through the DUT, why would it earn high scores?)


In my opinion, it shouldn't. That would seem to be the ticket to the dance, so
to speak. If it puts you off in some way, or you don't enjoy listening to it -
why would anything else it does matter?
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote
Sorry, Tom, but I disagree with you. Since reproducing music is the goal
and
music has an 'emotional' component to it, you cannot ignore the 'enjoyment
factor'. Some call it 'musicality'. If a piece of equipment scores high
but
you don't enjoy listening to it - isn't that pretty meaningless?


(Buster Mudd)
Does the music really have an emotional component to it...or is there
an emotional component to the act of listening to music? I.e., is the
emotion in the recording/performance, or is it in the listener? If
it's the latter, no
meaningful evaluation of audio equipment can even address this issue
without losing its objectivity. And if it's the former

..prove it.


Have you been to a live performance of music lately? Did it involve you
emotionally? Now listen to a recorded version of the same performance - did it
make you feel the same? If not, what were the differences? Was it the music
or the music reproduced through your equipment tha failed to stir you? The
emotional content is in the music - the composer/musician's intent which is
what music is all about and how it differs from random chords.

Then again, you might have had a bad seat, or a stomach ache.
Or a noisy neighbor. Or the acoustics weren't all that hot. You might
listen to the recording at home, in a comfy seat, with some pepcid handy,
in a quiet room, with the sound of the playback adjusted to your
tastes. And the emotional experience might be different. Maybe
better, maybe worse, maybe just *different*.

Alternately, it can happen that you have developed an emotional attachment
to a particular recording...and hearing the work performed live doesn't
quite have the same kick, for any number of reasons.

I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:48:18 +0000, S888Wheel wrote:

I said


It would reduce the effect of somethings just as well IMO. It may not allow
you
to address other things though. Listener fatigue will never be addressed in
short auditions no matter how many you do.

Tom said


I disagree strongly. A half hour will cause fatique in systems where the
tonal
balance errors promotes same. Indeed that's one of the bogus complaints about
controlled listening; it's too stressful.
__________________________________________________ _________
s888Wheel stated:

I'm not sure a half an hour is all that short a term especially when quick
switching was being discussed. However, I have found several systems that were
not fatiguing in a half hour that were fatiguing in a couple hours. No doubt
some systems are so bad that they are fatiguing in minutes.
__________________________________________________ _________

Ref: Short term...Long term switching..listening..etc.

I concur with you S888...I have had systems that tended to get a bit
fatiguing after a bit over two hours..on certain types of music. Never
would you determine this in a short time scenario. I have had systems
that would easily exceed two hours and still seem pleasant and I had
the desire to continue. However, at times,due to some variable..I
later found that less than an hour on that system I was ready to get up
and cut the thing off!** The variable was within my mental processes.

We all have this element of discontent within our psyche at times..
Unpredictable, but it is there at times..no matter how you try
to avoid it. The selection process of hardware on the "farside"
will not avoid this "nearside" (ear-mind-process) from occurring
no matter what! We do not have a handle on our ear-mind
processes yet...so, we tend to push most of the negative
variables off on the "hardware". In time we will better understand
this factor in the Audio domain.

This is a two sided equation...one will not be successful in trying
to correct an issue on the hardware side when in fact it is
somehow fired off in the mental "ear-brain" process. There
are known factors regarding some chemical imbalances that
tend to affect the sense of audio gain coming into the
ear..therefore the dynamics are affected.

But, I digress on a fascinating subject...

Leonard...

** There are exceptions to this...many moons ago
a few audio "nuts" and I had a device that drew a
power AC graph...when the power reached around
90volts..the system began to sound a bit pale and
not dynamic at all. The variables can stagger you
in this hobby.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:IHWlb.4739$275.10158@attbi_s53...

I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.

I don't think it is a dead end. I, and others, have had the
experience of changing some component resulting in
a different long term emotional response than with the
previous component. You might keep it months. But with
the same collection of music on the shelf to choose from
you notice you just aren't much interested in listening as
before the component change. Sometimes you swap back
to the other component, and your interest in listening is
back at a higher level.

Yep, a multi-factorial situation. Messy as heck to figure out.
But if you change the component and it gets better, pretty
hard not to feel that had something to do with it. Is it because
it sounded different, because you liked the use of it better,
or what? Hard to say, but also hard to dismiss and say the
component swap had nothing to do with it.

So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to
bias and ignore it?

Dennis

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:IHWlb.4739$275.10158@attbi_s53...

I think trying to use 'emotional response' as a criterion for sound
is pretty much a dead end; it's just too multifactorial a phenomenon,
to draw conclusions from.

--

-S.

I don't think it is a dead end. I, and others, have had the
experience of changing some component resulting in
a different long term emotional response than with the
previous component. You might keep it months. But with
the same collection of music on the shelf to choose from
you notice you just aren't much interested in listening as
before the component change. Sometimes you swap back
to the other component, and your interest in listening is
back at a higher level.

Yep, a multi-factorial situation. Messy as heck to figure out.
But if you change the component and it gets better, pretty
hard not to feel that had something to do with it. Is it because
it sounded different, because you liked the use of it better,
or what? Hard to say, but also hard to dismiss and say the
component swap had nothing to do with it.

So do you believe your experience, or just right it off to
bias and ignore it?

Dennis

Well no. But you should put it in context. For example the most 'moving'
rendition of "Tonight's The Night" (Shirelles) I've ever heard was in the back
seat of a '53 chevy with a factory radio. Does that make me want to use that
audio system as a reference? Or make me want to emulate the sound?

So I can both relish/believe my 'experience' and also be aware of what
psychoacoustics tell us about likey causes of differences in perceived "sound."