Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around
here, but being just an average user I am curious. There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different amplifiers, cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system). Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. Discussions most often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from start. All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered why, today, with all the high tech gear around, there is no objective way to test things. I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one* plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current decides what comes out as sound. Now the questions: 1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'? or 2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'? 3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already? 4. if so, why are they not considered reliable? 4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple. My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, by physical law, cause the coil to move in the exact same way and so create the exact same sound. The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment never produces *exactly* the same thing. Still, one would get a value for the difference in data, no? If of any interest, I side with those who trust the results from the ABX-tests. Thanks |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Iordani" wrote in message
1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'? Yes, but of equal or greater interest is the voltage produced by an amplifier. Either can be measured. 2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'? Cone movement is usually measured directly by means of laser inferiometery. So, yes. 3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already? Yes. 4. if so, why are they not considered reliable? I consider them to be reliable for what they reveal, so I decline to answer this question. My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, by physical law, cause the coil to move in the exact same way and so create the exact same sound. That's how it works, all other things being equal. However, its more common to measure the voltage across a speaker. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:39:57 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ): This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around here, but being just an average user I am curious. There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different amplifiers, cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system). Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. Discussions most often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from start. All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered why, today, with all the high tech gear around, there is no objective way to test things. I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one* plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current decides what comes out as sound. Now the questions: 1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'? or 2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'? 3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already? 4. if so, why are they not considered reliable? 4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple. My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, by physical law, cause the coil to move in the exact same way and so create the exact same sound. The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment never produces *exactly* the same thing. Still, one would get a value for the difference in data, no? If of any interest, I side with those who trust the results from the ABX-tests. Thanks While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking about measuring the wrong things. Current strength and variations address distortion not at all and neither does the movement of the loudspeaker's cone. Sound is a complex waveform which doesn't yield to such first order effects such as measuring current or speaker cone displacement. There is even controversy about how the things we do measure (harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, etc.) actually DOES affect what we hear. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:39:57 -0800, Iordani wrote I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something like, that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one* plane, that is back and forth. Strength and variation in this current decides what comes out as sound. Now the questions: 1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'? or 2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'? 3. if it's possible, have this kind of tests been done already? 4. if so, why are they not considered reliable? 4. if not at all possible, why is that? Please keep it technically simple. While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking about measuring the wrong things. Current strength and variations address distortion not at all and neither does the movement of the loudspeaker's cone. Sound is a complex waveform which doesn't yield to such first order effects such as measuring current or speaker cone displacement. Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless. Current is not all that important because speaker impedance and efficiency vary with frequency. Cone movement **IS** of course a vital thing. But a cone is not a perfect piston, it distorts (physically) so you must measure it at all points. This can and has been done and is a great way to characterize a speaker. But even it is not everything, because the whole cabinet vibrates too, and for woofers there often is sound coming out of a port. Doug McDonald |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Arny, Sonnova, Dough.
Thanks for your opinions. Doug McDonald wrote: Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless. Sonnova wrote: While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking about measuring the wrong things. No, this is not what I suggested. I fully understand that it's totally meaningless/impossible task to try to calculate sound and the it's quality, at least using today's knowledge. So I will try to clarify myself. What I suggest is actually the very opposite and the keyword is *compare*. Arny suggested it would be possible to measure the coil's movement by using laser technology so let's say we use this. I assume we agree on that the movement of the coil creates the sound and that an identical pattern of moving it will cause an identical sound. Yes? The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). Still, nothing is ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every direction possible and also to detect for flex in the coil itself. Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation and a sufficient sample rate. So we will get 4 sets of data with nanometer(?) values called data set A. We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound. We collect the data called data set B. We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there are some sort of differences between them. If there are none then equipment is equal. If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values signifying quality, just pure values) So, what's (theoretically) wrong with this? Thanks |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:22:28 -0800, Iordani wrote
(in article ): Arny, Sonnova, Dough. Thanks for your opinions. Doug McDonald wrote: Actually, it does. But they are the wrong questions, nevertheless. Sonnova wrote: While it is possible to measure all of these things, you are actually asking the wrong questions. What you are asking is for us to calculate the quality of a duck's quack by measuring the length of his beak. I.E. you are asking about measuring the wrong things. No, this is not what I suggested. I fully understand that it's totally meaningless/impossible task to try to calculate sound and the it's quality, at least using today's knowledge. So I will try to clarify myself. What I suggest is actually the very opposite and the keyword is *compare*. Arny suggested it would be possible to measure the coil's movement by using laser technology so let's say we use this. I assume we agree on that the movement of the coil creates the sound and that an identical pattern of moving it will cause an identical sound. Yes? Theoretically, yes. I think I know where you are going. Let's see if I'm right... The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). Still, nothing is ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every direction possible and also to detect for flex in the coil itself. Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation and a sufficient sample rate. So we will get 4 sets of data with nanometer(?) values called data set A. We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound. We collect the data called data set B. We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there are some sort of differences between them. If there are none then equipment is equal. If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values signifying quality, just pure values) So, what's (theoretically) wrong with this? Well, I was wrong. You went somewhere else. OK. First of all, unless one has something against which to compare the data from your original laser interferometer test, it's meaningless in and of itself. While you WOULD build a profile of the speaker's movement, without some frame of reference, that profile would largely be useless except as a basis for comparing OTHER interferometer profiles for the purpose of determining differences between the original profile and subsequent ones. IOW, making the laser interferometer profile would tell you something about the speaker under test (and perhaps, to some degree, the components powering it), but that profile would tell you little about how the system actually reproduces music, unless, somehow, you had been able to do a similar profile of the original performance. Without that, the laser would give you uncorrelatable data. Data that, in and of itself, means nothing because we don't know what the data is telling us except that it is an accurate representation of transducer (cone or diaphragm) movement at any given instant. We would not know, for instance, how that transducer movement corresponds with what we actually hear. All we could do is change something in the chain and see if the laser interferometer results would be different after the change. If they were different, we would know that the change had altered the transducer movement in a significant enough way to affect the interferometer data. OTOH, if the interferometer registered no change in the transducer's response to the equipment change, it does NOT tell us that no audible change has occurred in the system, because without any reference, we wouldn't know what the resolution limits are of the laser measurement techniques, nor how the results of the laser interferometer correlate with how we hear. To put it another way. A difference in the speaker profile would indicate that changing-out a component in the system has made a detectable and measurable difference in the speaker's movement, but the absence of such a change in results would not necessarily mean that changing-out an upstream component DID NOT make a difference in how the system sounds. Thanks |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Jan 10, 10:22*am, Iordani wrote:
The coil is designed to move back and forth (I think). *Still, *nothing is ideal so let's rig the laser equipment so that we measure the coil in every direction possible and *also to detect for flex in the coil itself. Say we decide on 4 different properties of the coil's movement/deformation and a sufficient sample rate. *So we will get 4 sets of data with nanometer(?) values called data set A. We change some equipment (not speakers) and play the same music or sound. We collect the data called data set B. We let some clever software *compare* set A and set B to establish if there are some sort of differences between them. * If there are none then equipment is equal. If there are differences one could put some values to those. (not values signifying quality, *just pure values) What would be the difference between this and simply measuring the electrical signal at the speaker terminals? I'm not clear on why you think measuring cone movement is critical here. Also, you will almost always get differences in the signal with any change—even swapping out two "identical" amps. So you're still left with the question of how much difference is necessary to be audible. But measuring cone movement doesn't solve that problem. I suppose there could be some differences in signal that wouldn't result in measurable differences in cone movement (depending on your resolution), but I can't see where that gets you very much in terms of sorting out the audible from the inaudible. bob bob |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Jan 7, 6:39*pm, Iordani wrote:
This may seem to be some overly stupid questions to all sound gurus around here, *but being just an average user I am curious. There seem to be an everlasting argument going on about how different amplifiers, *cd-players and other electronic sound equipment effect the quality of sound reproduced (from the same speaker system). Arguments often include reference to ABX-tests where people judge the equipment by the subjective impression they get 'by ear'. *Discussions most often end with all leaving with exactly the same opinion they had from start. *All fair enough and no one is really hurt but I have often wondered why, *today, *with all the high tech gear around, *there is no objective way to test things. I have only a very basic knowledge of how speakers work and goes something like, *that a current from an amplifier causes a coil to move in *one* plane, *that is back and forth. *Strength and variation in this current decides what comes out as sound. Now the questions: 1. is it possible to measure and compare the actual current strength and variations(?) produced by amplifiers (or other equipment) playing the same piece of 'sound'? * or 2. is it possible to measure and compare the actual *movement* of the coil (or cone) caused by amplifiers playing the same piece of 'sound'? 3. if it's possible, *have this kind of tests been done already? 4. if so, *why are they not considered reliable? 4. if not at all possible, why is that? *Please keep it technically simple. My thinking is of course that an identical flow of current will, *by physical law, *cause the coil to move in the *exact same way and so create the exact same sound. * The only thing I can imagine why this wouldn't work is that the equipment never produces *exactly* the same thing. *Still, *one would get a value for the difference in data, *no? If of any interest, *I side with those who trust the results from the ABX-tests. Thanks Measure, measure, measure.... Only really useful for measuring stuff... Being that our own hearing is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either like, love, dislike, hate... what we perceive as proper fidelity, and what we perceive as not so proper fidelity in sound reproduction. Technical reports and measurements do not mean much to me regarding any sound reproduction setup. I trust my ears and mind when evaluating sonic worth, or quality. If I can reliably hear something not right, then I have to ignore any amount of papers or measurements that say that I shouldn't hear a difference. If I can't reliably hear something not right, then I have to ignore any amount of papers or measurements that say that I should hear a difference. This is a very objective process, using the only equipment that matters... my ears and brain. If I can reliably distinguish an audible occurance, then it is real to me. If I can't, then it doesn't matter because I can't hear it. Trust your own listening gear. There is nothing else that you can use that can make a difference in what you hear. Cheers, Skeeter |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Skeeter wrote:
Measure, measure, measure.... Only really useful for measuring stuff... Being that our own hearing is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either like, love, dislike, hate... No, it isn't. It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio quality -- whether we like one thing better than another -- can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think we know) beforehand. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Jan 17, 12:51*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Skeeter wrote: Measure, measure, measure.... Only really useful for measuring stuff... *Being that our own hearing is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either like, love, dislike, hate... No, it isn't. *It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio quality -- whether we like one thing better than another -- can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think we know) beforehand. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Hi Steve, Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so. An objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious knowledge of the source being auditioned. The auditioning process must be totally blind of distraction. If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements that claim that it shouldn't be true. If a person accurately, and reliably can identify the offending source, that is all that really matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening skill, and conscious discrimination. If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it. I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were entirely happy with the result. To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it should not be possible. Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio. Cheers, Skeeter |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:09:42 -0800, Skeeter wrote
(in article ): On Jan 17, 12:51*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Skeeter wrote: Measure, measure, measure.... Only really useful for measuring stuff... *Being that our own hearing is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either like, love, dislike, hate... No, it isn't. *It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio quality -- whether we like one thing better than another -- can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think we know) beforehand. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Hi Steve, Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so. An objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious knowledge of the source being auditioned. The auditioning process must be totally blind of distraction. If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements that claim that it shouldn't be true. If a person accurately, and reliably can identify the offending source, that is all that really matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening skill, and conscious discrimination. If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it. I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were entirely happy with the result. There is growing evidence that the ear is not very sensitive to the types of distortions that are traditionally measured. Most people, for instance, would not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001% THD, 0.01% THD, and 0.1% THD. That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to 1% and more. In a listening test that I was party to a number of years ago, the assembled panel of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD initially, and then one was re-biased down the output tubes' characteristic curve (in steps) until the bias was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer was reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test, and neither the technician adjusting the bias on one of the amps nor the panel knew which amp they were listening to. Several of the members of the panel started picking out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about 1.25%, but not everybody heard it until about 2% (this was using a 400Hz tone). When music was played through both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any difference between the amps, and we never did get a reliable consensus. To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it should not be possible. I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even IM that that they were cuing upon. It was something else, perhaps speaker/amp interaction, frequency response anomalies, or even something as simple as a level mismatch (and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into thinking that the louder amp is, somehow, the better one.). Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio. Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way
of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Hi Sonnova, I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations, a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar source recordings. I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they deserve and are likely not very critical listeners. Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own ears. Cheers, Skeeter |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Skeeter wrote:
On Jan 17, 12:51?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Skeeter wrote: Measure, measure, measure.... Only really useful for measuring stuff... ?Being that our own hearing is the only real important factor in discriminating what we either like, love, dislike, hate... No, it isn't. ?It's rather easy to show that our judgement of audio quality -- whether we like one thing better than another -- can be affected by what we see, and what we know (or think we know) beforehand. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Hi Steve, Your comment is only true if the listener allows it to be so. Wrong. An objective listener does not allow visual distractions or conscious knowledge of the source being auditioned. Wrong. The auditioning process must be totally blind of distraction. Yes, and to do that, blind methods must be used. If a person can reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then it doesn't matter how many studies, or measurements that claim that it shouldn't be true. Actually, it does. If a person accurately, and reliably can identify the offending source The science tell us that that's a mighty big IF. that is all that really matters. It is true to that person's hearing equipment, listening skill, and conscious discrimination. But it may not be objectively true. If a person cannot reliably hear something not right with a given audio reproduction, then the opposite is true. It does not matter how many studies or measurements that claim that it should be true. If a person cannot accurately, and reliably identify the source, then that is all that really matters. To this person, this difference or distortion doesn't matter because they cannot identify it. That means is that that person cannot hear it. If someone else can. under properly controlled conditions, then the effect is real. I have witnessed plenty of occurances where supposedly large amounts of distortion types were entirely measureable, but some listeners were entirely happy with the result. That is a matter of preference, not a question of whether the distortion was audible or not. To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurances where some people were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it should not be possible. There has *never*, to my knowledge, been a case wehre difference verified under double blind conditions, did not have a reasonable measurable cause. Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. Not really; best advice is to be aware of the fact that their hearing could be influenced by other factors...especially when 'auditioning' high-priced gear. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Skeeter" wrote in message
Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio. To trust your hearing and just your hearing is the goal of the now 30-year old reliable listening test initiative, which started with the invention of ABX testing of commercial and home-made audio equipment. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Skeeter" wrote in message
... Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Hi Sonnova, I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations, a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar source recordings. I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they deserve and are likely not very critical listeners. Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own ears. Cheers, Skeeter Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself. Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and have musically accurate systems as a result, low component turnover, and years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Skeeter" wrote in message ... Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Hi Sonnova, I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations, a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar source recordings. I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they deserve and are likely not very critical listeners. Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own ears. Cheers, Skeeter Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself. You are fooling yours self if you think you can self-immunize against cognitive bias sufficiently enough to make controls unnecessary. If people could do that, don't you think science would have adopted such a huge time-saver by now? Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and have musically accurate systems as a result, Accurate determined *how*? (I can guess what the answer will be) low component turnover, and years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert. Which proves exactly nothing. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Sonnova" wrote in message
There is growing evidence that the ear is not very sensitive to the types of distortions that are traditionally measured. Huh? Most people, for instance, would not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001% THD, 0.01% THD, and 0.1% THD. That's an indication of how good amplifiers are these days. So little nonlinear distortion of any kind that it is not a reason to prefer one over another. It in no way is a criticism of nonlinear distortion as a means for evaluating amplifiers. Nonlinear distortion in sufficient quantities detracts from an amplifiers sonic transparency. Imagine that every car obtained 10,000 mpg. Would that mean that fuel economy was no longer important? What it would mean that fuel economy was no longer a good reason to choose one car over another. That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to 1% and more. That depends on the music being used to run the test. In a listening test that I was party to a number of years ago, the assembled panel of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD initially, and then one was re-biased down the output tubes' characteristic curve (in steps) until the bias was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer was reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test, and neither the technician adjusting the bias on one of the amps nor the panel knew which amp they were listening to. Several of the members of the panel started picking out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about 1.25%, but not everybody heard it until about 2% (this was using a 400Hz tone). When music was played through both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any difference between the amps, and we never did get a reliable consensus. That sounds like a listening test based on say piano or organ music. Both have quite a few harmonics of their own, so adding a few more in the right places is not readily noticed by the ear. To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurrences where some people were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it should not be possible. That has never been documented to occur during a proper bias-controlled listening test. If you know of such a case and can document it, you could obtain fame if not fortune by getting it published. Editors of audio-related professional journals love to print articles like this, if they prove to be true when examined by experts. I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even IM that they were cuing upon. It was something else, perhaps speaker/amp interaction, frequency response anomalies, or even something as simple as a level mismatch (and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into thinking that the louder amp is, somehow, the better one.). All of those thing are easily measured and have known thresholds. Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio. If the listening tests are properly done, and not done with too much of a casual attitude as is very common these days, listening tests of components other than speakers, microphones, phono cartrdiges and analog tape tend to not provide much guidance for making choices. Amps, digital players and the like strongly tend to sound very similar or the same. Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Given that the average audiophile does not level match or time synch when he compares components, he is likely to pick components based on trivial properties such as which piece of equipment's volume control setting is more to the listener's preference. If the volume controls or output levels of the two pieces of equipment were set a little differently, the audiophile's preference might be different. Or, since almost all audiophile listening evaluations are often also not bias controlled, the listener may align the level mismatch that he can hear with the some supposed technical refinement that he can't hear. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:26:38 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Harry Lavo wrote: "Skeeter" wrote in message ... Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Hi Sonnova, I would not ever give any objective credit to sighted evaluations either, and am not arguing that they serve much purpose in choosing sound system parts. Critical listening requires a truly blind environment, as devoid of ambient noise as possible, no conversations, a clear and relaxed mind with closed eyes auditioning very familiar source recordings. I just find it incredibly wasteful to be distracted and assign much weight with studies and specifications when it is truly a person's own auditory senses that really require to be satisfied. If they are foolish enough to allow name brands, appearance, or the pop culture status associated with certain gear, then I say they get what they deserve and are likely not very critical listeners. Satisfy your own audio perceptions. Be objective when testing. Be satisfied with the reproduction that is most faithful to your own ears. Cheers, Skeeter Oh boy, have you ever opened a can of worms. Expect a barrage of responses insisting that this cannot be done, and that you are only fooling yourself. You are fooling yours self if you think you can self-immunize against cognitive bias sufficiently enough to make controls unnecessary. If people could do that, don't you think science would have adopted such a huge time-saver by now? How right you are! Despite the fact that many of us have made choices that way for years and have musically accurate systems as a result, Accurate determined *how*? (I can guess what the answer will be) low component turnover, and years of satisfaction, even upon returning from a concert. Which proves exactly nothing. Except that he's happy with he has chosen. You cannot get a much bang for your buck than that! |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:49:53 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message There is growing evidence that the ear is not very sensitive to the types of distortions that are traditionally measured. Huh? Most people, for instance, would not hear any difference between amplifiers with 0.001% THD, 0.01% THD, and 0.1% THD. That's an indication of how good amplifiers are these days. So little nonlinear distortion of any kind that it is not a reason to prefer one over another. It in no way is a criticism of nonlinear distortion as a means for evaluating amplifiers. Nonlinear distortion in sufficient quantities detracts from an amplifiers sonic transparency. Imagine that every car obtained 10,000 mpg. Would that mean that fuel economy was no longer important? What it would mean that fuel economy was no longer a good reason to choose one car over another. That inability also extends to 0.5% and even to 1% and more. That depends on the music being used to run the test. In a listening test that I was party to a number of years ago, the assembled panel of audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between two identical tube amplifiers, both of which were biased to give 0.1% THD initially, and then one was re-biased down the output tubes' characteristic curve (in steps) until the bias was lowered to the point where the distortion analyzer was reading over 2% THD!. This was a double blind test, and neither the technician adjusting the bias on one of the amps nor the panel knew which amp they were listening to. Several of the members of the panel started picking out the higher distortion amp when the THD reached about 1.25%, but not everybody heard it until about 2% (this was using a 400Hz tone). When music was played through both amps alternately, it was much harder to hear any difference between the amps, and we never did get a reliable consensus. That sounds like a listening test based on say piano or organ music. Both have quite a few harmonics of their own, so adding a few more in the right places is not readily noticed by the ear. To the contrary, I have also witnessed occurrences where some people were able to reliably identify audio sources when technically, it should not be possible. That has never been documented to occur during a proper bias-controlled listening test. If you know of such a case and can document it, you could obtain fame if not fortune by getting it published. Editors of audio-related professional journals love to print articles like this, if they prove to be true when examined by experts. I don't doubt that but if it's so, it wasn't THD or even IM that they were cuing upon. It was something else, perhaps speaker/amp interaction, frequency response anomalies, or even something as simple as a level mismatch (and it doesn't take much to fool the ear into thinking that the louder amp is, somehow, the better one.). All of those thing are easily measured and have known thresholds. Best advice to any high fidelity enthusiast, is to trust their own hearing. After all, what else could you possibly be indulging that would be meaningful to your enjoyment of reproduced audio. If the listening tests are properly done, and not done with too much of a casual attitude as is very common these days, listening tests of components other than speakers, microphones, phono cartrdiges and analog tape tend to not provide much guidance for making choices. Amps, digital players and the like strongly tend to sound very similar or the same. Unfortunately, sighted evaluations prejudice our ears, which is another way of saying that given two amplifiers, preamps, CD players, etc., the average audiophile is going to pick the one that he knows to be the more expensive, the more highly-touted, the better known etc. as the better unit. Given that the average audiophile does not level match or time synch when he compares components, he is likely to pick components based on trivial properties such as which piece of equipment's volume control setting is more to the listener's preference. If the volume controls or output levels of the two pieces of equipment were set a little differently, the audiophile's preference might be different. But I'm not talking about sonic evaluations with the above comment. I'm talking about how SEEING (or knowing about) the device under evaluation prejudices the listener. While you are right about tiny errors in test setup being able to influence the sonic results of the evaluation, its another subject. Or, since almost all audiophile listening evaluations are often also not bias controlled, the listener may align the level mismatch that he can hear with the some supposed technical refinement that he can't hear. True, but that's not what I was saying. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
Hi Steve,
Excuse me, but I feel that I must reiterate the reasoning, or purpose of possessing and procuring an audio reproduction system; and attempting to be as rational as possible. My understanding of this hobby, or passion is that I want to be convinced, or fooled by my audio reproduction system, and believe that I could be witnessing the original audio event. Next, I would like to clear the air of any misconceptions that may be prejudicing your comments. I am not a glitz and glam fan of high priced, or mysteriously esoteric audio culture products. I am basically a cheapskate, and have a most difficult time justifying my next purchase of anything. I do however appreciate and take into consideration the build of an item, and the longevity and reliability that is possible. Normally spending a fair price for good design, manufacturing, and workmanship yields this. I don't care about the cosmetics. This stuff is not part of my decor. With the exception of the loudspeakers, my electronics are always hidden from sight. I don't like the look of electronics in my house. In some rooms, I have managed to hide the louspeakers to varying degrees as well. But I never compromise the loudspeaker's room loading position to better hide it. BUT (Behold the Underlying Truth), I want it as economical as possible! I can't help being frugal, it's been built in since birth. I always want the best resulting possible audio reproduction, but also the best value for my effort and money. I do use the results and probabilities that science provides us with to help qualify whether a new component may offer some improvement in creating my convinicing audio illusion. I do pore over specifications. Having been a hobbyist for almost 40 years, and having an engineer's mindset my entire life strongly inclines me towards understanding the technology and testing, scientific method, et al. However, it is my own hearing equipment, listening discrimination, and consciousness that requires to be convinced or fooled with this setup. I do not believe that measurements and statistical studies with sample groups is absolutely accurate, relevant or parallel to my own listening experience. These are very helpful, but not exactly the last word every time. The last word, or final discrimination is always my own. I always compare and audition absolutely blind. I always insist upon using recordings that I am very familiar with in reproduction and source witnessing. The closer I am convinced, or fooled, then the recording and reproduction are serving my purpose. Regardless of any measurements or documented, statistical study. If I am further from being convinced, or fooled, then the reverse is true to me. Again, regardless of any measurements or documented, statistical study. When I invite a friend or colleague over for listening session, I don't spout measurements, statistics, and study results. I don't show the equipment of my setup to impress anyone. It's not a hot rod car. We get comfortable and listen for enjoyment and potentially a magic moment of "I felt like I was right there!" What else could we be indulging? Cheers, Skeeter |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Jan 22, 6:53*pm, Skeeter wrote:
Hi Steve, Excuse me, but I feel that I must reiterate the reasoning, or purpose of possessing and procuring anaudioreproduction system; and attempting to be as rational as possible. My understanding of this hobby, or passion is that I want to be convinced, or fooled by myaudioreproduction system, and believe that I could be witnessing theoriginalaudioevent. You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many $$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet and upon the arm rests of your chair. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many
$$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet and upon the arm rests of your chair. Hi Norman, I don't believe that simply $$$ spent in the pursuit of creating a "believable audio illusion" has much correlation with favourable results. In fact, I do believe that simply throwing $$$ into a sound reproduction system hardly ever yields impressive results in terms of creating convincing illusions of sonic events. Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a modest setup. Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is where I find most reproductions fail to convince. Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I primarily draw my reference from. Recording nature sounds, urban sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human voice. Never using effects of any kind except what the room or natural sound stage offers. I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live music in any form as a reference. Microphones, pickups, and loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. The result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original and reproduced sonic event. It can be enjoyable for me, but not as reference material. Cheers, Skeeter |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote
(in article ): You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many $$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet and upon the arm rests of your chair. Hi Norman, I don't believe that simply $$$ spent in the pursuit of creating a "believable audio illusion" has much correlation with favourable results. In fact, I do believe that simply throwing $$$ into a sound reproduction system hardly ever yields impressive results in terms of creating convincing illusions of sonic events. Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a modest setup. Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of the things that seem to distinguish really large, expensive speaker systems such as the MBL X-Treme and The Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can "pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to the way that a symphony orchestra in full song can "pressurize" a concert hall. It does that by not only moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but by maintaining relatively flat frequency response over much of the audible spectrum and doing so with low distortion and minimal phase anomalies. Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is where I find most reproductions fail to convince. Exactly. Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I primarily draw my reference from. Recording nature sounds, urban sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human voice. Never using effects of any kind except what the room or natural sound stage offers. I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live music in any form as a reference. Oh, I agree. I don't even want to listen to it. I have stated here before that I have walked out of (and on several occasions, demanded refunds) from concerts where a P.A. system was employed. I realize that rock concerts require "sound reinforcement" systems because many of their instruments are electronic in nature and actually won't make any sound without the sound system. But jazz ensembles, string quartets, symphony orchestras and any other group of totally acoustic instruments are simply ruined (IMHO) by playing through "sound reinforcement" systems. Microphones, pickups, and loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. The result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original and reproduced sonic event. It can be enjoyable for me, but not as reference material. It isn't enjoyable to me. Listening to music to me isn't JUST about the performance. To me hearing live music played in real space is at least HALF the pleasure in the experience. As far as I'm concerned, going to a live concert and listening to the performance through a "sound reinforcement" system is so unappealing that I feel that I would have better spent my money on a CD of the group or works performed and listening to them on my home audio system. I can guarantee you that this would sound better! |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote (in article ): snip Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a modest setup. Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of the things that seem to distinguish really large, expensive speaker systems such as the MBL X-Treme and The Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can "pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to the way that a symphony orchestra in full song can "pressurize" a concert hall. It does that by not only moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but by maintaining relatively flat frequency response over much of the audible spectrum and doing so with low distortion and minimal phase anomalies. Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... This is where I find most reproductions fail to convince. Exactly. snip This is another reason multichannel sound can be satisfying for full scale symphonic works.....if you use five full range speakers, or five subs with satellites. Five full range speakers will boost extremely low bass by as much as three db....orchestras sound much more lifelike with hall ambience and this room pressurization. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:43:16 -0800, Skeeter wrote Having it done "right" might be the difference. One of the things that seem to distinguish really large, expensive speaker systems such as the MBL X-Treme and The Wilson Audio Alexandria is that these speakers can "pressurize" the listening room in a similar manner to the way that a symphony orchestra in full song can "pressurize" a concert hall. It does that by not only moving huge amounts of air in the correct-sized room, but by maintaining relatively flat frequency response over much of the audible spectrum and doing so with low distortion and minimal phase anomalies. The technical specs for the Wilson Audio Alexandria include a single 13" subwoofer per channel. The pressurizing capabilities of this driver can be inferred pretty accurately, because due to geometric constraints, a given diameter driver can only move so much air at the current SOTA. I have friends whose stereos are composed of multiple woofers (i.e., 4 or more) that are up to 18" in diameter and also reach the limits of excursion due to geometry and the current SOTA. Obviously, they have far more air-moving capacity by integer multiples. The upper range drivers have equal or better pressurizing capabilities. The point is that exceeding the performance of the Wilson Audio Alexandria does not take $200K. $6K is more like it. Not a cheap system, but a horse of a whole different color, economically. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
On Jan 24, 3:43*pm, Skeeter wrote:
You're not going to fooled no matter what you do or no matter how many $$$ you might have available to spend. Attending a live Mahler concert your'e going to feel the sound pounding on your chest, sense its vibrations through the floor transmitted to the soles of you're feet and upon the arm rests of your chair. Hi Norman, (snip) Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a modest setup. I hope you are not going to next tell me that you can achieve the same using headphones. With loudspeakers are you going to have to sit in that old "sweet spot" to achieve this effect? If the diodes on my Brystons turn orange and flash red, I make a dash for the volume control and check the fuses on my speakers. If I were to attempt achieving such an effect, I would have a complete melt-down. Whether the reproduction includes enough of the original sonic details and nuances, ambiance... the "je ne sais quoi" elements... *This is where I find most reproductions fail to convince. Live, acoustic (naturally occurring) performances of anything sonically illuminating, inquisitive, or pleasurable is where I primarily draw my reference from. *Recording nature sounds, urban sounds, unplugged/acoustic instruments in solo, combo and the human voice. *Never using effects of any kind except what the room or natural sound stage offers. Agreed in totality. I am most definitely not in favour of electronically amplified live music in any form as a reference. *Microphones, pickups, and loudspeakers are some of the weakest links in audio reproduction. *The result is that the audience is then listening to a combined original and reproduced sonic event. *It can be enjoyable for me, but not as reference material. Ditto, agreed again. Cheers, Skeeter Norman |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Equipment test question
(verbage for context)
Having the sound pounding on my chest, and sensing it's vibrations through the floor, transmitted to the soles of my feet and upon the arm rests of my chair is really not that hard to achieve with even a modest setup. I hope you are not going to next tell me that you can achieve the same using headphones. With loudspeakers are you going to have to sit in that old "sweet spot" to achieve this effect? If the diodes on my Brystons turn orange and flash red, I make a dash for the volume control and check the fuses on my speakers. If I were to attempt achieving such an effect, I would have a complete melt-down. Hi Norman, No, I am not going to sell you on a set of headphones. You would just have to research a more efficient reproducer of mid and deep bass to achieve the physical effects possible from your Bryston's output capabilities. I'm not saying that you may be satisfied with the realism of sonic details that results from this endeavour. Opinions will vary. We each have our own preferences, budgets, and existing investments in gear. There are always limiting factors in every probable possibility. I do however enjoy headphone listening at times. A quality set of electrostatic headphones can be a revelation of sonic details present in source material. Not in a realistic sound stage however, and not with any tactile low end realism of course. It does appear that you are enjoying your setup despite it's liabilities, and that is what the results of this hobby should center upon. Cheers, Skeeter |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Test equipment | Pro Audio | |||
Test Equipment | High End Audio | |||
FS: TEST EQUIPMENT | Marketplace | |||
Test equipment | Tech | |||
Test equipment | Marketplace |