Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial
thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where Ethan Winer is debating
whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent
gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the
differences are way outside the realm of hearing.

(I am paraphrasing in a huge way here)

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...han-winer.html

http://tinyurl.com/yjugl7n

His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very
interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks
wrapped around line cords etc.

That's a separate part of the thread.

The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters,
pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees
the name plates on the gear.

Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he
could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV.

Discussion?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound,aus.hi-fi
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

wrote in message


There is currently a very interesting, and quite
controversial thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where
Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences
in high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard
assuming the measurements are the same or the
differences are way outside the realm of hearing.


Discussion?


Ethan Winer's a hack. End of discussion.


No surprise, this post is by the Buzzardnews forger/imposter. The guy is
just trying to make trouble for everybody - let him suffer in silence.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer[_3_] Ethan Winer[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

On Feb 22, 1:02 am, M0she_ wrote:
(I am paraphrasing in a huge way here)


Actually, you nailed it perfectly. :-)

--Ethan
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"M0she_" wrote in message

There is currently a very interesting, and quite
controversial thread going on in www.gearslutz.com where
Ethan Winer is debating whether or not the differences in
high end vs low end or decent gear can be heard assuming
the measurements are the same or the differences are way
outside the realm of hearing.

(I am paraphrasing in a huge way here)

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...han-winer.html

http://tinyurl.com/yjugl7n


The real meat of the discussion involves high end
converters, pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs
perception when one sees the name plates on the gear.


There is no doubt that there has been a tremendous improvement in the
price/performance of audio hardware, digital audio hardware, and especially
converters. Back in the late 1990s people (like me) happily paid about
$400 for a Turtle Beach Pinnacle with 2 channels that were barely CD
quality, had unbalanced analog I/O, etc., etc. Probably the value leader in
modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to
24/96 in and out for under $200, and performs well in excess of CD quality.
Or, there is the Delta 24/192 with 110 dB dynamic range, truely balanced
I/O, etc., etc. The better onboard interfaces on commodity PC system boards
have up to 8 outputs that are near CD quality for essentially zero
incremental cost.

Furthermore, A - D conversion has migrated out of the computer and into
consoles and mic preamps. For example, the Beheringer ADA8000 has 8 fully
balanced mic/line inputs and 8 line outputs with dual 8 channel digital
interface/light pipe multiplexers (in and out) for under $250. There are a
number of small consoles under $500 with computer digital outputs (FW and
USB) for all or most mic channels.

The interesting question is not whether or not the M-Audio and Behringer
equipment I mentioned is adequate for audio production, but whether or not
there is an audible benefit associated with fancier, higher-priced gear that
can cost actually thousands of dollars per channel. Or, to back off a notch,
is there even an audible difference between an ADA 8000 @ $250, or a
M-Audio Octane at more than twice the price?

IOW, what has happened to the Apogee/Millenia market?

Me, I'm spending my money on microphones, acoustics treatments and the like.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne[_2_] Laurence Payne[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,267
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Probably the value leader in
modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up to
24/96 in and out for under $200,


I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a new computer
is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot they require.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Probably the value leader in
modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with
8 channels at up to 24/96 in and out for under $200,


I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a
new computer is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot
they require.


I've been installing new Dell computers for a number of clients in the past
few weeks. Every one still has one or two traditional PCI slots.

If you check current on-the-shelf and web retailer desktop PC out, you will
find that the typical desktop PC for early 2010 has at least 2 PCI slots,
one narrow PCI-E slot and one wide PCI-E slot.

But the point is well-taken that if you want to run 32 channels with Delta
1010LTs, you either find a legacy PC, or you get something intended for
industrial use. Just about everything on the shelf at Staples won't do the
job.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:30:47 -0800 (PST), Ethan Winer wrote:

On Feb 22, 1:02 am, M0she_ wrote:
(I am paraphrasing in a huge way here)


Actually, you nailed it perfectly. :-)

--Ethan


Thanks Ethan!
FWIW I downloaded your files and listened along with the video and
I don't hear any difference in the comparisons until the intended
butchering of the files reaches a crazy level.


Of course I am not listening in a $200k or more studio nor is my
gear pristine.
I have RME and Delta cards, JBL 6328 and Event ASP8 monitors but
even my Genelec 8040 which I just sold gave me similar results.

I don't consider myself a golden eared person, not by a long shot
however I have over the years heard differences in gear but not
having the technical specs handy or better yet performance
measurements I can't be sure what the differences were attributed
to.

I think you've made people think and in the process have ruffled
more than a few feathers.
I for one would love to see a double blind, controlled listening
comparison between some of the very high end gear and some not so
high end gear and see if people really can hear a difference.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Glenn Dowdy[_2_] Glenn Dowdy[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:56:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Probably the value leader in
modern audio interfaces is the M-Audio Delta 1010LT with 8 channels at up
to
24/96 in and out for under $200,


I don't know if you can count the Deltas as modern, now a new computer
is unlikely to have the old-style pci slot they require.


My brand new p55 motherboard has 3 PCI slots. Motherboards without PCI slots
are the exception.

Glenn D.


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Hank Hank is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

In article ,
M0she_ wrote:

His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very
interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks
wrapped around line cords etc.

That's a separate part of the thread.

The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters,
pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees
the name plates on the gear.

Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he
could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV.

Don't drag me into any discussions about high-end audiophoolery.
I'm going to tell you right up front that my Klipsch Cornwalls are
connected to the amplifier through 16-guage copper zip cord. And they
are going to stay that way.

And I don't own any green felt pens, either.

The late Harry Olson brought out the issues of psychoacoustics in
electronic audio 60-70 years ago. But that's just a follow-on to
hot wars about string length scale among piano makers, and pipe scale
and wind chest design among pipe organ builders.

The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a
Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are
radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ.
Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk
about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers.

All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop
lists.

Hank

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Hank wrote:

In article ,
M0she_ wrote:

His AES presentation is also in there and includes some very
interesting stuff with esoteric audiophile gadgets like rocks
wrapped around line cords etc.

That's a separate part of the thread.

The real meat of the discussion involves high end converters,
pre-amps etc and double blind testing vs perception when one sees
the name plates on the gear.

Hank (LP restoration thread) will love this thread and I'll bet he
could offer some really interesting stuff from a scientific POV.

Don't drag me into any discussions about high-end audiophoolery.
I'm going to tell you right up front that my Klipsch Cornwalls are
connected to the amplifier through 16-guage copper zip cord. And they
are going to stay that way.


So are my KEf's in my home system.
Your point?


And I don't own any green felt pens, either.


I do.
Never used one on a CD though.


The late Harry Olson brought out the issues of psychoacoustics in
electronic audio 60-70 years ago. But that's just a follow-on to
hot wars about string length scale among piano makers, and pipe scale
and wind chest design among pipe organ builders.


Organ builders are a very "different" breed.
I grew up a person whose father is one of the last of the great
ones and have heard most of the war stories over the years.
Very passionate people and possibly some of the last true
craftsman.


The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a
Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are
radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ.
Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk
about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers.


Couldn't tell ya as I prefer to play the instrument rather than
analyze it much like I prefer to transfer vinyl to digital medium
by listening, critiquing and experimenting rather than analyzing
every aspect of why or why not something will or will not work.

If I did that, nothing would ever get done.

It's a fairly easy concept with today's software like Soundforge,
Wavelab, Diamond or Cedar if you will. The time consuming part is
manually editing severe clicks/pops.

All this reminds me of the story of the scientist who via advanced
mathematics created the perfect loudspeaker system.
He spent years, analyzing the data, pouring over technical manuals
and calculating all the Thiele Small parameters via his slide
rule.

After half a life's work, he had arrived at the scientifically
"perfect" loud speaker and submitted his thesis to all the various
science magazines such as Scientific American.

The other scientists in the industry praised him and he became an
instant celebrity in the scientific community.

Until one day when he got a call from a colleague who informed him
that there was a major problem with his theories.

Thinking maybe he had just made a minor calculation error, he
asked his colleague what this problem was related to and the
colleague told him that a lowly music enthusiast, amateur
"scientist" had actually built one of these speakers from the
calculations and it sounded awful.

Heresy! cried the celebrity scientist who had stunned the world.

The music enthusiast must have done something wrong.
The colleague said, well that is what we thought so a couple of us
scientists built one of your speakers as well and it too sounds
awful.

You *did* build a prototype to test your calculations, right?

The celebrity scientist stubbornly objected and said "why should I
have to do that, the math is all there, the theory is all there
and it should be perfect!

The moral of the story is sometimes it gets difficult to see the
forest for the trees.




All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop
lists.

Hank



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Mark is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 966
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?





There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial
thread going on inwww.gearslutz.comwhere Ethan Winer is debating
whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent
gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the
differences are way outside the realm of hearing.




thanks Ethan..

I agree with your comments and I am glad to see someone in the pro
audio community verbalize them explicitly..


audio transparency can be characterized by FOUR MEASURABLE
QUANTIFIABLE parameters...

thanks

Mark


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:21:36 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:




There is currently a very interesting, and quite controversial
thread going on inwww.gearslutz.comwhere Ethan Winer is debating
whether or not the differences in high end vs low end or decent
gear can be heard assuming the measurements are the same or the
differences are way outside the realm of hearing.




thanks Ethan..

I agree with your comments and I am glad to see someone in the pro
audio community verbalize them explicitly..


audio transparency can be characterized by FOUR MEASURABLE
QUANTIFIABLE parameters...

thanks

Mark


Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most
part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we
as humans have not discovered yet?

For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a
bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's
wallet and boosting one's ego.



  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Mark is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 966
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?


Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most
part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we
as humans have not discovered yet?

For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a
bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's
wallet and boosting one's ego.-



-then there will be five,...
But so far there is no evidence that we are missing anything....

Any gear that the measurements indicate should be transparent , are
transparent in double blind tests...


What is more interesting to think about is measuring and
characterizing the real audible differences between a Stradivarius
and a Yamaha.

Mark




  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:10:22 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:

Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for the most
part as well, what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we
as humans have not discovered yet?

For the record, I don't believe any of those crazy rocks in a
bottle, green pens etc have an effect other than draining one's
wallet and boosting one's ego.-



-then there will be five,...
But so far there is no evidence that we are missing anything....

Any gear that the measurements indicate should be transparent , are
transparent in double blind tests...


That's how I feel and I have yet to see a double blind test where
gear that measures the same can be differentiated in a
statistically significant manner.

It's the age old debate.




What is more interesting to think about is measuring and
characterizing the real audible differences between a Stradivarius
and a Yamaha.


There was just a special on History Channel that put forth the
theory that the reason a Stradivarious sounds superior is because
the "Little Ice Age" slowed the growth of the trees and caused the
wood of that era to be denser.

They used tree ring analysis to reach the conclusion.

Interesting.




  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"M0she_" wrote in message


Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for
the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or
parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet?


The devil is in the details. I'll answer the question with another
question.

How many orthogonal (perpendicular or non-interacting) parameters are
required to uniquely describe a point in 3 dimensional space?

The answer is of course 3. However, if you remove the requirements that the
parameters be orthogonal, then there can be any number of parameters that
you like greater than 3. However, then there will be many different sets of
parameters that describe the same point. If you pick other orthogonal
parameter systems, then they are like coordinate systems that are rotated
from the first one you picked. There is nothing new under the sun.

If we move on to audio, we observe that any single audio signal is
completely described by pairs of (again orthogonal) numbers, being a time
and the amplitude that corresponds to that time. Since we are interested in
characterizing errors in audio signals, the question becomes how many unique
different ways can an audio signal be in error? There are any number of
orthogonal or non-interacting sets of three ways that the signal can be in
error: The most common sets of non-interacting errors is that an
interfering signal can be added, the signal can have the wrong amplitude,
and/or the signal can have the wrong shape.

Each of these can be thought of as being orthogonal and non-interferring
with each other in the sense that you can add or subtract any one of these
kinds of error without changing the signal in any other way. IOW, you can
add an interferring signal without changing the size or shape of the basic
signal, you can change the shape of the signal without changing its size,
and you can change its size without changing its shape. There are no other
non-interacting ways that a signal can be in error once you pick these
particular three kinds of error. There are other ways to characterize
errors in the signal, but they are in some sense equivalent, or other
combinations of these three. These three seem to be natural and intuitive to
us. If we picked some other orthogonal ways to characterize the signal, all
we would do is have something that is less intuitive for us. There would be
no actual new information about errors in the signal.

The three kinds of signal error that I described can also be characterized
by measurements. The addition of an interferring signal can be measured as
SNR or dynamic range. Incorrect amplitude is characterized as frequency and
phase distortion. Incorrect shapes can be characterized by nonlinear
distortion, which includes harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion,
and phase or frequency modulation distortion. That's it. There is nothing
new under the sun.

The basic math of signal analysis says that once you have nailed down these
three basic error parameters relating to interferring signals, amplitude
error, and shape error, there can be no others that aren't somehow already
covered by these three. So there can't be a parameter that hasn't been
discovered yet, given that you are dealing with audio signals that are
described by time and amplitude.




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"M0she_" wrote in message


On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:10:22 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:



What is more interesting to think about is measuring and
characterizing the real audible differences between a
Stradivarius and a Yamaha.


There was just a special on History Channel that put
forth the theory that the reason a Stradivarious sounds
superior is because the "Little Ice Age" slowed the
growth of the trees and caused the wood of that era to be
denser.


The slow growth and added density is entirely measurable by means that have
been known for decades.

The different sound quality of different violins can be measured by
recording the various violins playing the same notes, and analyzing the
recording by well-known means.


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Hank" wrote ...
The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a
Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are
radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ.
Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk
about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers.

All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop
lists.


I put online my photo-tour of the Reiger factory (back in 1987 when
they were in Austria, still split in half by the Iron Curtain). I got a
significant amount of flack for suggesting that only the disreputable
theatre organ builders did such dastardly things as nicking the lips
of the pipes. http://www.rcrowley.com/Rieger/Tour.htm
I believe the company has since re-joined its other branch of the
family in the former East Germany (or something like that?)


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:04:34 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

"M0she_" wrote in message


Playing devil's advocate, because I agree with Ethan for
the most part as well, what if there is a measurement, or
parameter that we as humans have not discovered yet?


The devil is in the details. I'll answer the question with another
question.

How many orthogonal (perpendicular or non-interacting) parameters are
required to uniquely describe a point in 3 dimensional space?


snip---to save bandwidth


What a great analysis Arny!
I've saved your post to use as a reference in the future!

Thank you!

I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and that is
if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they should sound the
same and differences in sound can be traced back to a difference
in measurement.

I am not a golden eared person and never have been however I am
particularly sensitive to the stereo image and placement of
instruments, vocals etc within that electronic sound stage. For
some strange reason I can pick up flaws in recordings where the
sound stage has been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes
etc.

As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on occasion
but I've always believed that what I was hearing was due to a
difference in the specs of the units being compared.

I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:52:52 -0800, Richard Crowley wrote:

"Hank" wrote ...
The difference between the sound coming out of an Arp Schnitger or a
Cavaillé-Coll organ is quite different between them, but both are
radically different from a "Mighty Wurtilizer(sic)" theater organ.
Did C-C screw up the voicing by use of Barker levers? We won't talk
about Hope-Jones's electric action in Mighty Wurtilizers.

All of the real differences are quite detectable by looking a stop
lists.


I put online my photo-tour of the Reiger factory (back in 1987 when
they were in Austria, still split in half by the Iron Curtain). I got a
significant amount of flack for suggesting that only the disreputable
theatre organ builders did such dastardly things as nicking the lips
of the pipes. http://www.rcrowley.com/Rieger/Tour.htm
I believe the company has since re-joined its other branch of the
family in the former East Germany (or something like that?)


Fascinating!
I sent that link to my friend whose father was an organ builder,
now long retired.
I'm sure he will enjoy it!
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"M0she_" wrote in message


I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and
that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they
should sound the same and differences in sound can be
traced back to a difference in measurement.


While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best
possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the
performance of the audio gear that he "tested".

I am not a golden eared person and never have been
however I am particularly sensitive to the stereo image
and placement of instruments, vocals etc within that
electronic sound stage. For some strange reason I can
pick up flaws in recordings where the sound stage has
been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes etc.


When you are micing and mixing and doing other kinds of typical audio
production, it is pretty easy to screw up or at least change the imaging or
soundstage. Ditto for speakers and rooms. And it is not improbable that
analog recording/playback can screw them up as well. OTOH, straight-up
digital recording, mic preamps, power amps and the like are unlikely to harm
imaging, other than if someone messes with channel gain or balance.

As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on
occasion but I've always believed that what I was hearing
was due to a difference in the specs of the units being
compared.


In addition to specs, there are a number of slips and falls due to
interfacing, that would show up in measurements, were they done on site and
as-used.

I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages


If you read the stuff Ethan has written and had published over the years, he
hasn't changed much and he has been wrong about very little, if anything.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer[_3_] Ethan Winer[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

On Feb 23, 12:56 pm, M0she_ wrote:
what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we
as humans have not discovered yet?


If there was something more than the known four parameters, then some
"residue" would have been revealed by now in a null test. That's the
beauty of a null test, it shows all differences between two audio
streams or files, even if you don't know what to look for!

--Ethan
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer[_3_] Ethan Winer[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

On Feb 23, 2:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
The different sound quality of different violins can be measured by
recording the various violins playing the same notes, and analyzing the
recording by well-known means.


Another way to measure a violin (or cello etc) is to separate the
front and back plates from the body, and put them on a shaker table
with party glitter sprinkles as shown he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9swU5J3gLI

Carleen Hutchins is a famous luthier who did pioneering research in
the 1970s. She was loaned several Strad violins and allowed to take
them apart. (Imagine that!) Then she published an article in
Scientific American (October 1981 issue) with the results. My friends
Bob and Deena Spear are students of Carleen, and they make fine new
instruments using the same techniques to measure and fine tune the
plates:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/spear.html

Unlike the short YouTube video above which uses a fixed frequency, the
sine wave is usually swept to find the various resonances, then
allowed to settle as shown. This is a fascinating subject, and my own
cello was regraduated (years ago, before I bought it) by another
student of Hutchins using the same techniques.

--Ethan
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"M0she_" wrote in message

I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and
that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they
should sound the same and differences in sound can be
traced back to a difference in measurement.


While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best
possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the
performance of the audio gear that he "tested".


See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of everything that
went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies.

If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure the same, this is
an indication that you're not doing the right measurements and you need to
go back up and come up with a metric that explains the audible differences.

Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.

Unfortunately THIS philosophy not only resulted in a lot of bad sounding
designs that had great 1970s measurements, but it also resulted in the extreme
reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_ measurements. But Hirsch
and his crowd were first and basically provoked their reaction.

Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to make sure your
measurements are relevant.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer[_3_] Ethan Winer[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 98
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.


I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive
placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone
insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green
felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone
who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators"
improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So
in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if
the differences are real or just imagined.

--Ethan
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

Ethan Winer wrote:

Carleen Hutchins is a famous luthier who did pioneering research in
the 1970s. She was loaned several Strad violins and allowed to take
them apart. (Imagine that!) Then she published an article in
Scientific American (October 1981 issue) with the results.


Was that the article that discussed the possibility that Strad was
chemically
treating his wood? An instrument maker friend of mine read that and
tried using
a lye solution to leech moisture out of some wood that he used as a dulcimer
top. It gave it a kind of flamenco guitar quality that was interesting.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"M0she_" wrote in message

I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and
that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they
should sound the same and differences in sound can be
traced back to a difference in measurement.


While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he
always did the best possible job of using what was known
at the time about characterizing the performance of the
audio gear that he "tested".


See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of
everything that
went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies.


Change "everything" to "many things" , and we might agree. ;-)

If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure
the same, this is an indication that you're not doing the right
measurements and you need to
go back up and come up with a metric that explains the
audible differences.


Many times the perception that things don't sound the same actually comes
from poor quality subjective testing. I'm not talking about just blinding,
but also the simple matter of holding all relevant operational parameters
similar enough that they don't explain the observed differences.

For example, anyone show me someone who does +/- 0.1 dB level matched, time
synched listening tests on just about *any* audio production gear, and I'll
show you a pleasantly surprised face. ;-)

Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics
he had at the time were wonderful and if there were
audible differences they should be ignored and people who
heard them should be belittled.


IME Julian was not a cruel, highly emotional person. This can't be said
about many of his radical subjectivist detractors (aside from the true
gentlemen on this forum, of course. ;-) )

IOW Julian didn't often belittle the people he disagreed with, if ever. He
was flamed quite a bit. Simple belittling would be among the better
treatment he received from many of the consumer golden eared persuasion.
:-( Demonizing Hirsch is common to this day.

but it also resulted in the extreme
reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_
measurements.


I personally questioned Julian to his face about the relatively simplistic
measurements he did back in the day. He seemed to go the AP System 1 route
when the HP computerized FFT-based measurement gear of the day would have
yielded more useful information if analyzed correctly. Julian's background
was military electronics which is an area where I also have some err,
professional experience.

But Hirsch and his crowd were first and
basically provoked their reaction.


IMO & IME many of the radical subjectivists who flamed Julian were often
already provoked by their own desire for fun and profit.

Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to
make sure your measurements are relevant.


+1, with a bullet.


  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardwarebe heard?

Ethan Winer wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.


I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive
placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone
insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green
felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone
who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators"
improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So
in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if
the differences are real or just imagined.


Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave
your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it.

I have heard a lot of things that I wouldn't have expected to hear, and
some of them turned out to make sense when investigated more carefully and
some didn't. For example... those cable elevators... do they actually
change the coupling of the speaker to the floor through a heavy cable?
Does the speaker have to be propped back a couple degrees to make them fit?
Those side-effects can change the sound a lot and sometimes that's a good
thing.

I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block
on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test
showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard,
and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy
support and I use less microphonic input tubes....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Ethan Winer wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:16 am, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the
metrics he had at the time were wonderful and if there
were audible differences they should be ignored and
people who heard them should be belittled.


I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real
and pervasive placebo effect, and expectation bias etc.
For example, if someone insisted to you that their CDs
sound better after applying a green felt marker to the
edges, what would you tell them?


Been there, done that.

Same for someone who
claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable
elevators" improved the sound.


By the time I saw that fad manifest itself right before my face I wasn't so
much into tilting at windmills.

All claims of sound differences are not real.


Strictly speaking they are real to the claimants if they are sincere. What's
lacking is general applicability and reliability.

So in cases like this, the
first step is to use a blind test to see if the
differences are real or just imagined.


There are some "hot" words in there that may not help our cause a lot.

Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test,
you can't just wave your hands around and say "that won't
show up in a blind test" and ignore it.


We would go crazy trying to do everybody's testing for them.

I have heard a lot of things that I wouldn't have
expected to hear, and
some of them turned out to make sense when investigated
more carefully and some didn't. For example... those
cable elevators... do they actually change the coupling
of the speaker to the floor through a heavy cable?


If the cable is big enough to be acoustically signfiicant, is it still
really a cable?

Does the speaker have to be propped back a couple degrees
to make them fit?


No.

Those side-effects can change the sound
a lot and sometimes that's a good thing.


I don't know of anyway that people are helped by increasing their belief in
audio placeboes.

I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this
big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did sound better.


woo-woo-woo-woo!

A single-blind test showed it sounded better.


A single blind test is a DBT that is defective. Wise people don't go there,
ever since Clever Hans back in the early 1800s.

Then I tried
a cinderblock from the backyard,
and that did the same thing....


Just because it is cheap doesn't mean it is right.

now I have my amplifier
on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic input
tubes.... --scott


Oh, tubes! Well getting rid of the microphonc tubes was a good idea, but
the best way to do that involves a bit of modernization...


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:26:36 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

"M0she_" wrote in message


I for one am a believer in what Julian Hirsch stated and
that is if 2 electronic devices measure the same, they
should sound the same and differences in sound can be
traced back to a difference in measurement.


While I'm a fan of Julian Hirsch, I don't think he always did the best
possible job of using what was known at the time about characterizing the
performance of the audio gear that he "tested".


True!
I've been a fan of his for many years, but when I took exception
it was generally in his comments section where he gave personal
opinons on the gear he happened to be testing.

I remember one pet peeve of his was phono pre-amp overload rating
and he clobbered more than few pieces of gear even though the
overload rating was way above what cartridges could produce even
when running test disks desgined to max out the output.

I didn't always agree with him on that.

I am not a golden eared person and never have been
however I am particularly sensitive to the stereo image
and placement of instruments, vocals etc within that
electronic sound stage. For some strange reason I can
pick up flaws in recordings where the sound stage has
been upset by either poor editing, multiple takes etc.


When you are micing and mixing and doing other kinds of typical audio
production, it is pretty easy to screw up or at least change the imaging or
soundstage. Ditto for speakers and rooms. And it is not improbable that
analog recording/playback can screw them up as well. OTOH, straight-up
digital recording, mic preamps, power amps and the like are unlikely to harm
imaging, other than if someone messes with channel gain or balance.


WRT to analog, like tape, it seems very common in terms of the
tape lifting off the heads and one channel "wavering".
I hear it in many tunes.
Then of course there are editing problems.



As for hearing differences in equipment, yes I have on
occasion but I've always believed that what I was hearing
was due to a difference in the specs of the units being
compared.


In addition to specs, there are a number of slips and falls due to
interfacing, that would show up in measurements, were they done on site and
as-used.


Yes.


I think Ethan has rattled more than a few cages


If you read the stuff Ethan has written and had published over the years, he
hasn't changed much and he has been wrong about very little, if anything.


Yea, I like Ethan and I like cats as well
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


I have to side with Scott on this. While I am of the
opinion that any audio artifact can be quantized, I am
also of the opinion that there is a missing link in Ethan
and Arny's argument: namely, that quantizing has been
done properly.


As with Scott, your statement fails on the grounds that you seem to be too
sure of yourself.

I would agree with the statement that the stated missing link *may* exist in
any particular situation. Whether the link is missing or not is at least
potentially knowable.






  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On 24 Feb 2010 09:16:20 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:


See, I would characterize Julian Hirsch as an example of everything that
went wrong with audio engineering back in the seventies.

If two systems don't sound the same, but they do measure the same, this is
an indication that you're not doing the right measurements and you need to
go back up and come up with a metric that explains the audible differences.


I don't disagree with that.
Did Julian take that POV?
IOW from the "sound different" aspect, or did he just dismiss it?

Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.


I think you have to work within the technology available at the
time. I don't belittle people who claim to hear differences etc
however I would welcome them to consistently demonstrate this in a
controlled setting.

Unfortunately THIS philosophy not only resulted in a lot of bad sounding
designs that had great 1970s measurements, but it also resulted in the extreme
reaction of the "subjectivists" who ignored _all_ measurements. But Hirsch
and his crowd were first and basically provoked their reaction.


Those were volatile times!
I remember the "power wars" where you needed a hand truck just to
take home your latest receiver!
As I recall, and I may be wrong, I think Sansui won the war


Measurements are great, but you need to keep listening to make sure your
measurements are relevant.


I think we all agree to this.
See my other post about the mathematically correct loudspeaker etc
in the vinyl thread.

--scott

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:


I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block
on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test
showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard,
and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy
support and I use less microphonic input tubes....
--scott


Key word "tubes".
Do you think you would have heard a difference if this was a high
quality solid state unit?
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
M0she_ M0she_ is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), Ethan Winer wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:56 pm, M0she_ wrote:
what if there is a measurement, or parameter that we
as humans have not discovered yet?


If there was something more than the known four parameters, then some
"residue" would have been revealed by now in a null test. That's the
beauty of a null test, it shows all differences between two audio
streams or files, even if you don't know what to look for!

--Ethan


Yea I've done some informal experiments like that comparing
different DAW software to see if one influences the sound more
than another.

I guess I am looking for fairy dust
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Ethan Winer wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the
time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be
ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.


I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive
placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone
insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green
felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone
who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators"
improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So
in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if
the differences are real or just imagined.


Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave
your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore
it.


But it is the people who claim to HEAR differences from magic cable
and green markers and wooden knobs who ALSO wave their hands
and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. THAT is
why I believe it isn't that terribly disasterous to simply ignore it/them.


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"M0she_" wrote in message

On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:


I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this
big metal block on my amplifier... and it really did
sound better. A single-blind test showed it sounded
better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard,
and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier
on a more sturdy support and I use less microphonic
input tubes.... --scott


Key word "tubes".
Do you think you would have heard a difference if this
was a high quality solid state unit?


Absence of microphonics.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


Any signal carrying wire, or unbypassed other wire,
creates an electrical differential as the distance
between the wire and a ground plane changes. This is the
basic principle of condenser microphones.


However, typically said voltage is typically so small as to be difficult or
impossible to measure, let alone hear.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message


Julian Hirsch was a man of his times. By today's
standards, the amplifiers he looked at in the 70's were
rather poor.


Hirsch reviewed amps for Stereo Review until 1988.

By then amplifiers with very low distortion were commonly available.



  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

M0she_ wrote:
On 24 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I was reviewing for a high end magazine and tried this big metal block
on my amplifier... and it really did sound better. A single-blind test
showed it sounded better. Then I tried a cinderblock from the backyard,
and that did the same thing.... now I have my amplifier on a more sturdy
support and I use less microphonic input tubes....


Key word "tubes".
Do you think you would have heard a difference if this was a high
quality solid state unit?


Probably not... and now with input tubes that are better-supported
internally, I don't hear a difference with my existing amp any more.

But if I _did_ hear a difference with a high quality solid state unit,
I'd start tapping around with a pencil looking for a film cap that was
microphonic or a solder joint with a similar problem.

The point is... I _did_ hear something... it's just that the cool gadget
was glossing over another problem that really needed to be fixed rather
than providing a real system benefit.

Also... just because you hear a difference in a double-blind test doesn't
mean that the difference is an _improvement_ at all. I can rig a test
to make people pick a cassette dub over an original signal.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Ethan Winer wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julian Hirsch's philosophy seemed to be that the metrics he had at the
time
were wonderful and if there were audible differences they should be
ignored
and people who heard them should be belittled.

I don't entirely disagree, but that omits the very real and pervasive
placebo effect, and expectation bias etc. For example, if someone
insisted to you that their CDs sound better after applying a green
felt marker to the edges, what would you tell them? Same for someone
who claims raising up their speaker wires on "cable elevators"
improved the sound. All claims of sound differences are not real. So
in cases like this, the first step is to use a blind test to see if
the differences are real or just imagined.


Oh, absolutely. But you have to actually DO the test, you can't just wave
your hands around and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore
it.


But it is the people who claim to HEAR differences from magic cable
and green markers and wooden knobs who ALSO wave their hands
and say "that won't show up in a blind test" and ignore it. THAT is
why I believe it isn't that terribly disasterous to simply ignore it/them.


And that, I think is a failing, because it may cause you to miss something
that really _is_ audible. You have to listen and you have to test.

Yes, there are crazy people on both sides of the aisle. My only point is
that Julian and crew started the craziness and the crazy people on the other
side appeared as a reaction to his craziness.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Very Interesting Gearslutz Thread Can differences in hardware be heard?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
m

Any signal carrying wire, or unbypassed other wire,
creates an electrical differential as the distance
between the wire and a ground plane changes. This is the
basic principle of condenser microphones.


However, typically said voltage is typically so small as to be difficult or
impossible to measure, let alone hear.


Except in a high-Z world, where triboelectric noise becomes a real problem
in things like guitar cables.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting digital recording differences David E. Bath High End Audio 18 February 27th 07 08:28 PM
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard Oceans 2K High End Audio 57 April 13th 04 06:27 PM
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard Bob Marcus High End Audio 6 April 7th 04 08:19 PM
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard] Bob Marcus High End Audio 0 April 6th 04 10:33 PM
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard Bob High End Audio 1 March 28th 04 07:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"