New vs Vintage

[Audio Empire]

We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's true
with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
'80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics? Of
course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
smug conviction badly shaken recently.

An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somewhat
amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integrated
amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from disparate
sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale and
was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a
mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found the mate to the unit and so
equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing the
multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer
available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon mounted
under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the
controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, It
was then that he called me.

Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybrids.
I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but was
willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapters
(the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connections on
the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close to
one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up after
connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player.

The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong.
I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. The amps
sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) but
these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
those! Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs were
clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. This really
surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz.

The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or when I
pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well past
the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick
sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, these
little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels with
any kind of music. I could happily live with them as my main system if
coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet the
combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
No, we don't all assume that.
> New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
> us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.
No. Newer is not always better.
> Certainly that's true
> with speakers,
Hmmmm, not necessarily.
> today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
> '80's,
How do you know this?
> Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
> are arms,
And how do you know this?
> Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic
hybrids.
> I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wrong.
> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).

That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so
that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a
former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff?

[jwvm]

On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

<snip>

>
> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
ong.
> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
ut
> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
> startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
> sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
> against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
> little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
ut
> these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
> Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
> monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
> those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
ere
> clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
ly
> surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
..

Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The
requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with
some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements
will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but
they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20
KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at
that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum.
Many people cannot hear that high anyway.
>
> The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
en I
> pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
t
> the noon position.

Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high-
quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:54:50 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
>> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
> ong.
>> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
> ut
>> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
>> startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
>> sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
>> against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
>> little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
> ut
>> these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
>> Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
>> monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
>> those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
> ere
>> clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
> ly
>> surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
> .
>
> Amplifier technology was reasonably advanced in the 1950's. The
> requirements for linear amplification were well understood and with
> some care it was possible to obtain good results. Careful measurements
> will reveal a number of deficiencies compared to modern amplifiers but
> they may not be easily heard. The low impedance of your speakers at 20
> KHz is unlikely to be an issue since there is very little energy at
> that frequency and lower frequencies mask this part of the spectrum.
> Many people cannot hear that high anyway.
>>
>> The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
> en I
>> pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
> t
>> the noon position.
>
> Modern technology makes it easy to design low-cost high-power high-
> quality amplifiers to avoid this limitation.

Of course they do. I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a new
set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than
> yesterday's.
> New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to
> give
> us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's
> true
> with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
> '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,
> as
> are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics?
> Of
> course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
> capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
> smug conviction badly shaken recently.
>
> An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
> acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was
> somewhat
> amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20
> integrated
> amplifiers from the 1950s.

>snip<

I could happily live with them as my main system if
> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
> the
> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me
through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with
an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than
>> yesterday's.
>> New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to
>> give
>> us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. Certainly that's
>> true
>> with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
>> '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,
>> as
>> are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics?
>> Of
>> course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
>> capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
>> smug conviction badly shaken recently.
>>
>> An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
>> acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was
>> somewhat
>> amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20
>> integrated
>> amplifiers from the 1950s.
>
>> snip<
>
> I could happily live with them as my main system if
>> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays them
>> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thorens
>> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
>> the
>> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.
>
> Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got me
> through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
> days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
> Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled with
> an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
> cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.


Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine was
a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner (HFT-90)
and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet it
didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC.
And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than they
are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
(designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition of
a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance. That
tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my career
( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point (!)
when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was clever.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> > We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
> > than yesterday's.

And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in
this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some
particular subgroup of human beings.

Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I
don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too,
doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't
assume that either.

On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles
know or assume and make no claims about it.

Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are
not "we all".

I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you
are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things
that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar
suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's
credibility.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:40:56 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday's.
> No, we don't all assume that.
>> New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to give
>> us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.
> No. Newer is not always better.
>> Certainly that's true
>> with speakers,
> Hmmmm, not necessarily.
>> today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
>> '80's,
> How do you know this?
>> Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, as
>> are arms,
> And how do you know this?
> > Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic
> hybrids.
>> I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
>> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
>> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite
>> wrong.
>> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to about
>> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).
>
> That doesn't mean anything t all.

What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons,
is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's
limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the
case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get
even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven. It's not like it
has a VU meter on it or anything. Sheesh!

> A volume control's taper can be set so
> that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation. You're a
> former audio equipment reviewer and don't understand this stuff?

Since when have you ever seen a volume control on an amplifier that wasn't a
standard logarithmic or "audio" taper? While it IS possible, in 1955, it
would have been unlikely in the extreme. And you wonder that I don't
understand this stuff!

Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

> I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
> actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n=
ew
> set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
> cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.

I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for
decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were
designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in
the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but
somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It
was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion.

And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
that came
to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
that old home built Wharfedale speaker.

We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
pretty well had to have to make things work.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>

>snip<

>>
>> I could happily live with them as my main system if
>>> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
>>> them
>>> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
>>> Thorens
>>> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
>>> the
>>> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.
>>
>> Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
>> me
>> through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
>> days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
>> Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
>> with
>> an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
>> cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.
>
>
> Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
> was
> a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
> (HFT-90)
> and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet
> it
> didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
> lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington
> DC.
> And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
> they
> are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
> importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
> (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition
> of
> a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
> That
> tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
> probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
> career
> ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
> tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
> across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
> station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
> (!)
> when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
> clever.

That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo
came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And
the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases
me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a
few weeks afterward. :-( ).

As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I
still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still
runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the
mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 18:27:25 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>>> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
>>> than yesterday's.
>
> And how do you know this? Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
> electronic engineers in the world? What does "We all" even mean in
> this context? Everyone in the world? Just the audiophiles? Some
> particular subgroup of human beings.
>
> Have you done a random sample survey? I know you didn't ask me and I
> don't assume that at all. Someone else has posted that he, too,
> doesn't assume that. And I know personally several other's who don't
> assume that either.
>
> On the other hand I know nothing at all about what "all" audiophiles
> know or assume and make no claims about it.
>
> Maybe you and your friends assume this, but you and your friends are
> not "we all".
>
> I am not in any way accusing you of lying, or even suggesting that you
> are. But maybe you would take a little more care when stating things
> that you cannot possibly know for certain in a context whose grammar
> suggests that you do. Exaggeration does not improve one's
> credibility.
>

Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant
to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and
don't. So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you can
COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my friend.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much
> better than yesterday's.

In general, it is.

> New materials, improved
> technology, better components; all conspire to give us
> levels of performance unheard of a generation ago.

Not only that, but we get that performance in a far more convenient package
and for far less money.

> Certainly that's true with speakers, today's CD players
> certainly outperform those of the mid '80's,

I guess you're not keeping up. CD players are now obsolete artifacts of a
decade or more back. Aside from overpriced high end audio jewelry, you can
barely even buy new CD players any more.

> Today's
> phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday,

Actually not, since the best of them are virtually unchanged technology-wise
from the days of vinyl.


> as are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables.

No.

> But what about electronics? Of course they're better, they
> just have to be.

The basic design principles of audio are completely changed. The canonical
design for a modern piece of signal processing audio gear is a computer with
some DACs wrapped around it. Active filters have long been supplanted by
DSPs. FM radios are now based on a wideband RF stage that drives a digital
converter and the rest of the unit runs in the digital domain. More audio is
being distributed via general purpose digital networks (IOW, the internet)
than on physical media. Power amps don't have heavy power transformers or
output transformers any more. Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered,
low efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way
things are now being done. A huge fraction of all music listening is being
done via earphones and headphones that completely bypass the old school
world of rooms and speakers.

Special purpose audio media is simply going away. Even hard drives are being
replaced with flash or network downloads. This is true for both audio and
video.


> Better circuits, better capacitors,
> better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had
> that smug conviction badly shaken recently.

Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs, capacitors
and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For example even the
coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being replaced with
servo-reference voltage sources because the size and performance of coupling
capacitors need not be tolerated.

[C. Leeds]

> On 3/26/2011 12:24 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

>> I was skeptical that a pair of 20-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls...
>> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
>> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite
>> wrong.
>> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to
>> about
>> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock).

I answered:

> That doesn't mean anything t all. A volume control's taper can be set so
> that maximum output can be achieved anywhere in its rotation.

> on 3/26/2011 9:28 PM now Audio Empire sez:

> What it means, when one reads for CONTENT rather than for contrarian reasons...

I do read for content, and I read critically. Using critical thinking
doesn't make a reader a contrarian. If you don't want your beliefs
subject to evaluation, don't post them in a public discussion group.

> is that while my expectation was that I'd have to run the amplifier near it's
> limit to get enough drive to power my speakers, such turned out to not be the
> case. Other than the control position, there is no way on this amp to get
> even a rough idea at how hard the amplifier is being driven.

Again: the position of the control reveals nothing - absolutely nothing
at all - about "how hard the amplifier is being driven." A volume
control taper can be set so that maximum output is reached anyplace
along its rotation.

> Can't you just enjoy the anecdote in the spirit in which it was presented?

If the "spirit" you intend is that we must accept your opinions as fact
and your mistaken conclusions as valid, then the answer is no. Sorry.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
>> actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a n=
> ew
>> set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
>> cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.
>
> I don't know why you would be surprised since this has been know for
> decades. Tube amps that were essentially transparent were
> designed back in the 1940's I believe, and some were in production in
> the 1950's if my memory serves me. Maybe it was the sixties but
> somewhere around then the Leak .01 amplifier was sold in England. It
> was +- 1 db from 20-20000 hz and had less than 0.1 percent distortion.

Yes, The Leak did have the published specs you quote. AT ONE WATT! That was a
common ploy in the 1950's and 1960's to publish spectacular specs, then
follow them with an asterisk. When you find the asterisk's foot-note (usually
in tiny print) it would say "at one Watt".

Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little Eicos
to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were, clearly,
not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.

> And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
> were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.

You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's VISIBLE
crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh SS
deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded dreadful?
Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness, were
essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or
the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
2N3055 output devices...).
>
> These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
> trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
> that came
> to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
> though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
> fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
> the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
> Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
> still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
> back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
> Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
> midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
> 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
> levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
> repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
> heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
> surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
> that old home built Wharfedale speaker.
>
> We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
> you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
> could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
> pretty well had to have to make things work.

I grew up in that era, and I can tell you that the nostalgia is almost as
colored as much of the equipment from those days. While tube amps like
Mcintosh and Marantz Model 9s and to a lesser extent, Dynacos, were pretty
good, there were lots more that were simply mediocre (mostly due to cheap
output transformers). They measured OK at 1 Watt, as I said above, but as the
power went up, they sounded worse and worse. I have a friend who, until a
couple of years ago, had a stereo system consisting of a pair of Heathkit
WA-P2 preamps and a pair of Heathkit Willaimson power amps playing through a
pair of 2-way speakers consisting of Electrovoice 15" woofers, and
Electrovoice horn tweeters and crossovers mounted in huge "Karlson Kabinet"
enclosures. In spite of the huge woofer, and the imposingly big cabinets, the
system had no real bass below about 50 Hz and the horn tweeters were beamy
and overly bright and edgy. His electronics sounded OK at low levels, but
anything above that and they became pretty colored. I'll say this for the
system, it would play LOUD. Those Williamson amps were only 25 Watts/channel
but they would play those very efficient speakers very loudly. Too bad you
didn't want to listen listen to them "loud"

OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec Lansing
speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by 30-inch
enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)! I've
never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does. The
bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've ever
heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those huge
speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble horns"
take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating these
terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I guess
they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help them
for music).

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>> snip<
>
>>>
>>> I could happily live with them as my main system if
>>>> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
>>>> them
>>>> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
>>>> Thorens
>>>> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet
>>>> the
>>>> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.
>>>
>>> Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
>>> me
>>> through my last year of high school and four years of college. In those
>>> days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
>>> Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
>>> with
>>> an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
>>> cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
>> was
>> a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
>> (HFT-90)
>> and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and yet
>> it
>> didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because I
>> lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of Washington
>> DC.
>> And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
>> they
>> are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
>> importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide bandwidth
>> (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the addition
>> of
>> a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
>> That
>> tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and I
>> probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
>> career
>> ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember this
>> tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
>> across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
>> station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
>> (!)
>> when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
>> clever.
>
> That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when stereo
> came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
> outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine. And
> the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
> first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife teases
> me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within a
> few weeks afterward. :-( ).

Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the
latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output
transformer for it's power output.

> As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
> expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards. I
> still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it still
> runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than the
> mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.

I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a square
weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation of
Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to
pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in shells
though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost ubiquitous
General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that
stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78 RPM
stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180
degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I always
wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later when
the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I still
want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly
slip through my fingers).

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Mar 27, 7:43=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:

> >>> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better
> >>> than yesterday's.

> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:33PM -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

> > And how do you know this? =A0Have you talked to "all" audiophiles and
> > electronic engineers in the world? =A0What does "We all" even mean in
> > this context? =A0Everyone in the world? =A0Just the audiophiles? =A0Som=
e
> > particular subgroup of human beings.

> >> On Mar 25, 9:24 pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Seedhouse. Get a life. the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
> universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's not=
meant
> to be taken literally, and, thankfully, most people understand this and
> don't. =A0So, If you have nothing more constructive to add than this, you=
can
> COUNT on my not responding to you any more. Life's just too short, my fri=
end.

So are you a journalist then? But this forum is not a newspaper or
magazine, but a *discussion* forum. If you don't want to be
criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. It isn't really
all that hard to do. I am no journalist and when I read statements
that exaggerate obviously in newspapers and magazines I draw
conclusions about how interesting or worthwhile they are likely to be.

Now there are several audio journals that (it seems to me) specialize
in this kind of thing, so perhaps you should submit your articles to
them and see if they'll publish them.and pay you. And good luck to
you.

But if you want to be a "journalist" this is not the place for it so
far as I can see. It is a discussion group and one expects, or should
be expecting at any rate, criticism, which is what you have received
here from more than one source on exactly the same point. I am pretty
happy with the life I already have, but it certainly not perfect and
could possibly be improved if someone were to send me, say, a couple
of million dollars. I have heard wealth does not improve happiness
but am willing to serve as an experimental subject.

But when I get told to "get a life" simply because I make a mild
criticism it always seems to me that it is the person who is making
this insulting response (un-moderated for some reason) is likely the
one who needs to consider following his own advice.

If you post un sourced claims and exaggerations in a usenet discussion
forum, expect criticism. If you can't stand that you might try
posting elsewhere. Better still would be to keep posting here but to
be a little more careful of making unsubstantiated claims.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>
> So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or
> magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be
> criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0

I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....


The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>>> I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
>>> actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a
>>> n=
>> ew
>>> set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
>>> cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.
>>

>snip<

>
> Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
> sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little
> Eicos
> to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were,
> clearly,
> not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
> efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.
>
>> And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
>> were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.
>
> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's
> VISIBLE
> crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
> oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
> distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh
> SS
> deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded
> dreadful?
> Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness,
> were
> essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos
> or
> the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
> 2N3055 output devices...).

Amen, brother, amen. Had experience (either by owning or helping friends)
with all of those. Any wonder I ended up with an ARC D90B?

>> These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
>> trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
>> that came
>> to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
>> though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
>> fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
>> the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
>> Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
>> still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
>> back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
>> Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
>> midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
>> 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
>> levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
>> repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
>> heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
>> surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
>> that old home built Wharfedale speaker.
>>
>> We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
>> you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
>> could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
>> pretty well had to have to make things work.

<snip>

> OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec
> Lansing
> speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by
> 30-inch
> enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)!
> I've
> never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does.
> The
> bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've
> ever
> heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those
> huge
> speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble
> horns"
> take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating
> these
> terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I
> guess
> they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help
> them
> for music).

I was lucky enough to have a dad who was in the business. So we had a big
mono JBL corner horn with two 15" woofers and a propriatary mid-range/treble
horn that sufficed up to about 15k. It did a pretty good job of sounding
"real" driven by a 25watt Newcomb power amp, especially on the audiophile
pressings of the day (I still recall the sound of the old Audiophile Label
12" red vinyl LP's featuring Red Nichols and the Five Pennies...."in the
room" sound. And then there were Emory Cook's "Sounds of Our Times"
recordings. One in particular, "Speed the Parting Guest" was a favorite in
our house. And of course the ubiquitous "Railroad Sounds". :/) ).
>
>

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:05:56 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:37:49 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 10:10=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was just somewhat surprised at how GOOD these old amps
>>>> actually were and thought I would share it with the group. Except for a
>>>> n=
>>> ew
>>>> set of tubes and a couple of new filter caps in the power supply, and
>>>> cleaning the controls, these amps' signal paths were untouched.
>>>
>
>> snip<
>
>>
>> Actually, until quite recently, tube amps were all over the place. Some
>> sounded good by modern standards, some, not so good. These cheap little
>> Eicos
>> to which I referred sounded great, even through speakers that were,
>> clearly,
>> not a good match for them for a number of reasons (but mostly due to
>> efficiency). That is what surprised me the most.
>>
>>> And of course by the end of the 1960's solid state amplifiers that
>>> were essentially sonically transparent were commonly available.
>>
>> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class 'B' with it's
>> VISIBLE
>> crossover notch? Or the Acoustech amplifier that went into supersonic
>> oscillation if you looked at it wrong, and created lots of odd-order
>> distortion when not blowing its output transistors? Or the early McIntosh
>> SS
>> deigns that used coupling transformers between stages and sounded
>> dreadful?
>> Or the early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in fairness,
>> were
>> essentially bulletproof. Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos
>> or
>> the Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
>> 2N3055 output devices...).
>
> Amen, brother, amen. Had experience (either by owning or helping friends)
> with all of those. Any wonder I ended up with an ARC D90B?
>
>>> These amplifiers did not put out much power it is true, and had
>>> trouble driving the early and inefficient "acoustic suspension" system
>>> that came
>>> to popularity around then. I heard in the 1950's a system that,
>>> though monophonic, would very likely meet the standard of "high
>>> fidelity" even today. Of course records of the day were outclassed by
>>> the CD systems that came later, but I remember listening to the
>>> Shostakovatch fifth on my friend's Dad's monophonic system while I was
>>> still in high school and being quite amazed at the sound quality even
>>> back then from his kit built dynaco amps and preamps driving a
>>> Wharfdale 9 cubic foot corner brick enclosure with a 15" woofer, 8"
>>> midrange and 3" tweeter. That system was efficient for sure and the
>>> 30 or 40 watts from the Dynaco kit could drive it to extraordinary
>>> levels and I had my first taste of real deep and un-boomy bass, not
>>> repeated for many years except at live concerts.. Later that year I
>>> heard our local symphony with an aunt supplying the tickets and was
>>> surprised at how much like the orchestra in front of me sounded to
>>> that old home built Wharfedale speaker.
>>>
>>> We can do just as well today for what amounts to a lot less money when
>>> you discount for inflation. But HI-Fi was invented in the 1940's and
>>> could be amazingly good even with the old gigantic speakers that you
>>> pretty well had to have to make things work.
>
> <snip>
>
>> OTOH, I know an old guy (in his mid eighties) who has a pair of Altec
>> Lansing
>> speaker systems that have bass to die for. Each 50-inch by 65-inch by
>> 30-inch
>> enclosure houses FOUR 15-inch Altec woofers (that's EIGHT altogether)!
>> I've
>> never heard a home stereo system pressurize a room like that system does.
>> The
>> bass not only goes subterranean, but it also can be felt like none I've
>> ever
>> heard outside of a concert hall. Unfortunately, the excellence of those
>> huge
>> speaker systems stops at 500 Hz where the simply HORRID Altec "treble
>> horns"
>> take over. I've known a number of people who had systems incorporating
>> these
>> terrible sounding devices. I've never heard them sound good on music (I
>> guess
>> they were OK in a movie theatre for speech intelligibility, but god help
>> them
>> for music).
>
> I was lucky enough to have a dad who was in the business. So we had a big
> mono JBL corner horn with two 15" woofers and a propriatary mid-range/treble
> horn that sufficed up to about 15k. It did a pretty good job of sounding
> "real" driven by a 25watt Newcomb power amp, especially on the audiophile
> pressings of the day (I still recall the sound of the old Audiophile Label
> 12" red vinyl LP's featuring Red Nichols and the Five Pennies...."in the
> room" sound. And then there were Emory Cook's "Sounds of Our Times"
> recordings. One in particular, "Speed the Parting Guest" was a favorite in
> our house. And of course the ubiquitous "Railroad Sounds". :/) ).

Emory Cook was quite innovative. I recall his Arthur Lyman releases. When on
the turntable, they looked normal enough, but when you picked them up, you
could see light through them. Cook called his process "Microfusion" groove
technology. I don't know how it actually differed from regular vinyl pressing
(if it all) but the records sounded excellent. All mono of course.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:43:06 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:56:28 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>
>>> snip<
>>
>>>>
>>>> I could happily live with them as my main system if
>>>>> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays
>>>>> them
>>>>> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage
>>>>> Thorens
>>>>> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll
>>>>> bet
>>>>> the
>>>>> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, memories! This was the first kit amp I built, and the one that got
>>>> me
>>>> through my last year of high school and four years of college. In
>>>> those
>>>> days it drove at first an EV SP-15 in a bass reflex cabinet and later a
>>>> Jensen 15" Tri-Ax in a corner horn (both cabinets hand built). Coupled
>>>> with
>>>> an Eico FM Tuner and a Garrad changer with an (exotic) Norelco mono
>>>> cartridge, it was a pretty decent beginning to my audio involvement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it would have been. What model Garrard turntable did you have? Mine
>>> was
>>> a "Type A" with a Pickering Cartridge. I also had an Eico FM tuner
>>> (HFT-90)
>>> and it was an excellent performer as I recall. It didn't have AFC, and
>>> yet
>>> it
>>> didn't drift appreciably. I didn't need really high sensitivity because
>>> I
>>> lived in the "prime reception" area in the Virginia suburbs of
>>> Washington
>>> DC.
>>> And because FM stations were much further apart geographically then than
>>> they
>>> are now (and there weren't so many of them), selectivity wasn't of great
>>> importance either. But I do recall that the thing had very wide
>>> bandwidth
>>> (designed for SCA) so that when stereo FM came along in '62, the
>>> addition
>>> of
>>> a Knight-Kit stereo demodulator kit gave excellent stereo performance.
>>> That
>>> tuner and Multiplex "adaptor" lasted me through high-school, college and
>>> I
>>> probably used it up until long after I had moved to CA and started my
>>> career
>>> ( I replaced it with a Pioneer TX-9500 IIRC) . I especially remember
>>> this
>>> tiny little vacuum tube that rode on the dial string carriage and moved
>>> across the dial when the tuning knob was turned. It's green glow was the
>>> station 'pointer' and it contracted from a line to an exclamation point
>>> (!)
>>> when you were tuned right on the station. I always thought that was
>>> clever.
>>
>> That's the tuner, for sure. I sold mine and bought a Sherwood when
>> stereo
>> came out and I had moved to Chicago for graduate school. In the area
>> outside of Cleveland where I went to school, the little Eico did fine.
>> And
>> the Model 20 amplifier was a dandy. Later on I built a 35wpc Eico as my
>> first stereo amp, just after graduating from school. My first wife
>> teases
>> me that I built that kit on our honeymoon (not quite, but perhaps within
>> a
>> few weeks afterward. :-( ).
>
> Was the Eico stereo amp as good as the little HF-20? I think that the
> latter's main strong point was the fact that it had such a HUGE output
> transformer for it's power output.

No, the transformers were not as good....and the compromises needed for
one-chassis stereo were already in evidence. But the transformers were
bigger than the Scotts and Fishers of the day, and it was a pretty good unit
nonetheless. These old guys are still sought after and being refurbed by
hobbyists today.


>
>> As for the Garrard....the A wasn't out yet....this was the much less
>> expensive AT-6. But it had a much better arm than the previous Garrards.
>> I
>> still have it sitting somewhere on a shelf in the basement. Doubt it
>> still
>> runs. However, the Norelco cartridge was a marvel, and much better than
>> the
>> mono GE reluctance cartridges that were the mainstream at the time.
>
> I remember the AT-6. It had a "dynamically balanced" tone-arm with a
> square
> weight on the back. It was certainly better than the previous generation
> of
> Garrads for sure which had molded phenolic tone arms and used a spring to
> pull "up" on the arm to provide stylus pressure. They did have plug-in
> shells
> though, as I recall. Most seemed to come equipped with the almost
> ubiquitous
> General Electric VR-II magnetic cartridge, the one with the red knob that
> stuck through the top of the tone-arm head shell. You changed from the 78
> RPM
> stylus to the LP stylus by pushing down on that knob and rotating it 180
> degrees! I think they even made a stereo version of that puppy. What I
> always
> wanted as a kid was either a Garrard 301 or a Thorens TD-124. Then later
> when
> the Empire 298 "Troubadour" came out, I switched allegiance to those. I
> still
> want one (I had a gorgeous 598 once and for some reason, let it foolishly
> slip through my fingers).

Well, my AT-6 yielded to a Dual 1019, then to a Rek-O-Kut with a Pritchard
wooden arm, then to a Dual 701 auto-manual (which I use still today), and
eventually to a Linn Sondek with Syrinx PU-2 arm, teamed with an Accuphase
AC-2 cartridge. I still use the Dual 701 and the Accuphase driving a
modified Marcof headamp in the system today.....the Linn was sacrificed in
the name of financing the five channel analog surround system I listen to
today.

[Kele]

Attack!

I understand you, Empire.

I think there is some built in "life expectancy" more now than in the
past... the way light bulbs are produced to function for a determined
number of hours/power-cycles before failing so that the consumer must
re-purchase periodically. They can make a 100 year bulb if they
wanted too.

Main thing is that, with electronics, we get more for the same money
compared to predicessors. More what?! My first 1983 CD player was a
22 lb tank, but kinda sounded brittle compared to even the 5 lb
slimline mas-market cheapos sold today. However, the 1983 model is
still in use with a nephew.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 27, 12:08=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>
>> So are you a journalist then? =A0But this forum is not a newspaper or
>> magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =A0If you don't want to be
>> criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =A0
>
> I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
> describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
> last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
> show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
> joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....
>
>
> The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
> has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
> than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.
>

I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, in
the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!

Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:

> the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
> universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not meant
> to be taken literally...

Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
statements you expect us to accept as factual.

Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
reviewer?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
> 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all sort of schemes to
measure or hear any such thing.

AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened in equipment that
needed maintenance, but it was not a standard feature of properly-operating
equipment.

> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers

A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and service manuals can be
found here: http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no McIntosh
SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you can find some?

Driver transformers were widely used in the early days of the evolution of
SS power amps, with surprisingly good results. Manufacturers that used them
included Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc. These parts
were called on to handle relatively small amounts of power and therefore
were easily overdesigned and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and
relatively rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They were
eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate (complementary - similar
transistors that were available as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely
available at low cost.

McIntosh used autoformers as output devices in order to improve the
impedance matching between the limited output devices of the day and
real-world speakers. But these are neither for interastage coupling nor are
they transformers as they maintain a DC path between their inputs and
outputs.

> beOr the
> early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in
> fairness, were essentially bulletproof.


The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA protection circuits
that contributed to their longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

> Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon
> Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
> 2N3055 output devices...).

The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its output devices were
RCA 40636's which were similar, but then so were very many other silicon
power transistors of the day.

The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output devices but they were
quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My
Dyna 120 appears to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772 output devices.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low efficiency speakers
> that sacrifice efficiency for size are the way things are now being
> done.

Persumably, this means that the big problem now is cooling the voice
coils of the low efficiency speakers.

> Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers and DSPs,
> capacitors and resistors are vanishing from signal paths. For
> example even the coupling capacitors on headphone amps are being
> replaced with servo-reference voltage sources because the size and
> performance of coupling capacitors need not be tolerated.

Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying me: why
bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing whjen all you need
is a little cap? :-)

Andrew.

[bob]

On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" > wrote:

> Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
> reviewer?

Don't they all? :-)

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in
message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>> Hyper-clean watts are cheap. High powered, low
>> efficiency speakers that sacrifice efficiency for size
>> are the way things are now being done.

> Persumably, this means that the big problem now is
> cooling the voice coils of the low efficiency speakers.

Not the problem or even the most intractable problem. High temperature
voice coils are commonplace.

Traditional room acoustics are the still the major problem that remains to
be overcome.

For example a large audio system that I recently help set up used 4 18"
woofers, each with 30 mm linear travel. Each of the two 2 ohm voice coils
for each driver were attached to a channel output of a 1250 wpc/2 ohm stereo
power amplifier. This system measures flat to well below 10 Hz, and can
generate SPLs at that frequency well in excess of 115 dB with low
distortion. In actual use I saw about 1/3 of the available linear travel
being exercised.

>> Wrong again. In a world of signal processing computers
>> and DSPs, capacitors and resistors are vanishing from
>> signal paths. For example even the coupling capacitors
>> on headphone amps are being replaced with
>> servo-reference voltage sources because the size and
>> performance of coupling capacitors need not be
>> tolerated.

> Ah, thanks. That answers a question that was mystifying
> me: why bother with all these servo designs I keep seeing
> whjen all you need is a little cap? :-)

The coupling caps for a headphone amp seem small enough until one tries to
fit an entire stereo receiver, music library, and music player into
something with the approximate footprint of a comemerative stamp and maybe
1/4" thick. In this day and age high performance op amps can be so small
and take so little power that one or more of them form a less costly and
more effective alternative to two audio coupling capacitors for a 16 ohm
headphone load.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 12:08=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>
> >> So are you a journalist then? =3DA0But this forum is not a newspaper o=
r
> >> magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =3DA0If you don't want to be
> >> criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =3DA0
>
> > I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
> > describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
> > last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
> > show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
> > joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....
>
> > The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
> > has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
> > than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.
>
> I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
> readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, i=
n
> the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
> lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!
>
> Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
> suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.

I was making a joke though. Guess the parody was to close to reality.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
> On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
> > the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
> > universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. =A0It's n=
ot meant
> > to be taken literally...
>
> Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
> Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
> statements you expect us to accept as factual.
>
> Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
> reviewer?

I hope he did. Hyperbole is a pretty common device in critical review
of any and all things subjective. It's on the readers to understand
this commonly used device. If one wishes to be boring as a reviewer
hyperbole should be avoided at all costs.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:12:11 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 28, 3:50=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:24:31 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 12:08=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
>>
>>>> So are you a journalist then? =3DA0But this forum is not a newspaper o=
> r
>>>> magazine, but a *discussion* forum. =3DA0If you don't want to be
>>>> criticized for exaggeration just stop exaggerating. =3DA0
>>
>>> I would like to add to that, don't use colorful language when
>>> describing your experiences and at all costs, avoid having fun. The
>>> last thing we want is for audiophiles to have fun with audio. If you
>>> show any signs of having fun I will personally ridicule you into
>>> joylessness. After all, it is a discussion forum.....
>>
>>> The OP asks the question "But what about electronics?" I think there
>>> has been a tendency towards fashionable trends that come and go more
>>> than a tendency for real breakthrough since the mid eighties.
>>
>> I stand duly chastised. I wrote an anecdote and posted it, hoping that
>> readers would find it fun and entertaining. I humbly apologize. I will, i=
> n
>> the future, endeavor to be as dull as mud and as boring as a temperance
>> lecturer in a beer hall - NOT!
>>
>> Sorry fellas, if you don't like what or how I write, I've a friendly
>> suggestion for you. Don't read my stuff. Problem solved.
>
> I was making a joke though. Guess the parody was to close to reality.


I know you were, and I was just expanding upon that joke with a mock apology.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:22:35 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 28, 6:50=A0am, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
>
>> Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
>> reviewer?
>
> Don't they all? :-)
>
> bob
>

It's pretty much de-riguer.

Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAINMENT,
first and foremost. If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
reader won't read his stuff. Of course, it's nice if one's reviews also
convey useful information and even better if it causes the reader to add the
component that the writer just reviewed to his short-list of components to
consider. But the overwhelming requirement remains entertainment.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
>> 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?
>
> I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all sort of schemes to
> measure or hear any such thing.
>
> AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened in equipment that
> needed maintenance, but it was not a standard feature of properly-operating
> equipment.

We've been down this road before. Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it
one point, they even offered a kit of parts for doing so. I even posted a
list of those parts for you. If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
the problem, if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.
>
>> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling transformers
>
> A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and service manuals can be
> found here: http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no McIntosh
> SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you can find some?

They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate between the tube
(McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac) gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in
the early Seventies,
>
> Driver transformers were widely used in the early days of the evolution of
> SS power amps, with surprisingly good results. Manufacturers that used them
> included Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc. These parts
> were called on to handle relatively small amounts of power and therefore
> were easily overdesigned and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and
> relatively rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They were
> eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate (complementary - similar
> transistors that were available as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely
> available at low cost.

Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used complementary drivers to
drive their output transistors. It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it
usually took the two driver transistors with it (and often the other 2N3055,
as well).
>
> McIntosh used autoformers as output devices in order to improve the
> impedance matching between the limited output devices of the day and
> real-world speakers. But these are neither for interastage coupling nor are
> they transformers as they maintain a DC path between their inputs and
> outputs.
>
>> beOr the
>> early Crown SS power amps that sounded terrible (but in
>> fairness, were essentially bulletproof.
>
>
> The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA protection circuits
> that contributed to their longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
> reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or the D300 sounded
"fine".

>> Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the Harman-Kardon
>> Citation 12, or any other 40-60 Watt/channel amps using
>> 2N3055 output devices...).
>
> The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its output devices were
> RCA 40636's which were similar, but then so were very many other silicon
> power transistors of the day.

The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,

> The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output devices but they were
> quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My
> Dyna 120 appears to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
> replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772 output devices.

And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class 'B' biasing, and thus
no crossover notch. Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover notch,
It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine wave test tone. By the time
Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the audiophiles that I knew (including
myself) had moved-on.

IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He came up with a
re-biasing scheme which was similar to Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as
well). The problem with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't just
replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts. Dyna selected the 2N3055s
for V-sub-BE (I believe) and you had to buy your replacements from the
factory (they weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the goddamn
thing blowing first one channel and then the other, so I moved on to a used
Citation two, (which was pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better
than that of the ST-120, as well.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:50:49 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/27/2011 10:43 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>
>> the hyperbole is a journalistic "device" and the
>> universal WE doesn't mean ANYTHING except as an opening line. It's not
>> meant
>> to be taken literally...
>
> Please explain how, as a journalist, you use this "device" of hyperbole.
> Please explain how a reader is to distinguish your hyperbole from other
> statements you expect us to accept as factual.
>
> Did you employ this hyperbolic "device" when you worked as an equipment
> reviewer?
>

I'm surprised that I have to explain these things to someone who''s
ostensibly, an adult.

Look, here's an analogy.

Someone is going to write a criticism of something Congress has done with
which he doesn't agree. He might open his criticism with:

"We all know that Congress has the best interests of the American people at
heart, but in its last session it passed a law......"

First of all, we all DON'T know that Congress has the best interests of the
American people at heart. The person writing this knows that's the case, the
persons reading it knows that's the case . We certainly hope it's true, and
many people even assume it's true, but others suspect it's not and some are
even convinced that it's not true. But it establishes a "community" of the
writer and the reader for the duration of the written piece. It becomes a
"peg", if you will, for the writer to hang his arguments from.

In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business model
of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many
audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than older
stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of this
widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject, My suggestion, which I will now
reiterate, is that if you don't like what or how I write, don't read what I
write. Believe me, it won't insult me in the least if you skip my meager
contributions to this august body. 8^)

Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
>>> 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?

>> I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all
>> sort of schemes to measure or hear any such thing.

>> AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened
>> in equipment that needed maintenance, but it was not a
>> standard feature of properly-operating equipment.

> We've been down this road before.

The facts you present actually support my experiences.

> Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it one point, they even offered a
> kit of
> parts for doing so. I even posted a list of those parts
> for you.

No need since that information has been on the internet for a long time.

> If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
> the problem,

You ought to be clear about this before you make those global statements.

>if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.

I've tried to get one of those in my possesion, and have failed. IME they
are unobtanium.

>>> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
>>> transformers
>>
>> A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
>> service manuals can be found here:
>> http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
>> McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you
>> can find some?
>
> They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate
> between the tube (McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac)
> gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in the early
> Seventies,

Irrelevant. There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS amps at the cited
location, and none of them have coupling transformers.

>> Driver transformers were widely used in the early days
>> of the evolution of SS power amps, with surprisingly
>> good results. Manufacturers that used them included
>> Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc.
>> These parts were called on to handle relatively small
>> amounts of power and therefore were easily overdesigned
>> and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and relatively
>> rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They
>> were eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate
>> (complementary - similar transistors that were available
>> as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely available at
>> low cost.

> Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used
> complementary drivers to drive their output transistors.

That became the standard way to do things, once complmentary drivers became
cheap and readily avaialble. The only signficant change since then has been
the use of true complementary output devices instead of compound pairs where
only the low-powered devices were complementary.

> It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it usually
> took the two driver transistors with it (and often the
> other 2N3055, as well).

If one fixes a lot of blown output stages one finds that this pattern
continues to this day. If you blow an output device, it often takes the
direct-coupled driver with it. Some output devices seem to have built-in
fuses, which fail in open circuits instead of shorts. This tends to make
failures less catastrophic.

>> The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
>> protection circuits that contributed to their
>> longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
>> reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.

> Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or
> the D300 sounded "fine".

It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the relevant equipment to
dispel many of these audiophile myths.

>>> Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the
>>> Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60
>>> Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...).

>> The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its
>> output devices were RCA 40636's which were similar, but
>> then so were very many other silicon power transistors
>> of the day.

> The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,


Last-minute parts substitutions at the factory are possibe 40636s are
pin-compatible with 2N3055s. In fact these devices were highly variable
when produced and selected by testing on the production line. The specified
tolerances were broad enough that type number substitutions, or remarking of
devices was often an option.


>> The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
>> devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772
>> types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120 appears
>> to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
>> replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772
>> output devices.

> And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
> 'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

Except that there was no offical later model, just the simple fact that the
parts in the boxes changed from time to time.

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

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

> IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
> came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
> Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably because it involved
upgrading some transistors with parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for
TI Plastic).

> The problem
> with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
> just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
> Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
> you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
> weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
> goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
> other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
> pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
> that of the ST-120, as well.

I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible differences would
disappear were proper DBT listening producedures actually be used. There's
an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where someone started scouting up
the details of the TIP mod to address audible distortion, but the person
asking the questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening the
speaker cables.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> You mean Like the Dynaco ST-120 running hard into class
>>>> 'B' with it's VISIBLE crossover notch?
>
>>> I have an all-orgional Dyna ST 120 and have tried all
>>> sort of schemes to measure or hear any such thing.
>
>>> AFAIK, this is an audiophile myth. It may have happened
>>> in equipment that needed maintenance, but it was not a
>>> standard feature of properly-operating equipment.
>
>> We've been down this road before.
>
> The facts you present actually support my experiences.
>
>> Dyna eventually fixed the problem and it one point, they even offered a
>> kit of
>> parts for doing so. I even posted a list of those parts
>> for you.
>
> No need since that information has been on the internet for a long time.

The "need" is irrelevant, the point is that I did list those parts for your
more than a years ago, IOW, the last time this subject came up here.
>
>
>> If you have a later ST-120, they don't exhibit
>> the problem,
>
> You ought to be clear about this before you make those global statements.

Since I mentioned it the last time this subject came up, I didn't feel the
need.

>> if you have one made before they finally fixed it, they did.
>
> I've tried to get one of those in my possesion, and have failed. IME they
> are unobtanium.

Well, I suspect that most have been discarded by now. After all, they were
pretty fragile. Not like today's very robust amps.
>
>>>> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
>>>> transformers
>>>
>>> A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
>>> service manuals can be found here:
>>> http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
>>> McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps you
>>> can find some?
>>
>> They were sold under the name "Mac" to differentiate
>> between the tube (McIntosh) and the transistor (Mac)
>> gear. They abandoned the "Mac" name in the early
>> Seventies,
>
> Irrelevant. There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS amps at the cited
> location, and none of them have coupling transformers.

That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking for them.

>>> Driver transformers were widely used in the early days
>>> of the evolution of SS power amps, with surprisingly
>>> good results. Manufacturers that used them included
>>> Acoustic Research, Heath, Altec Lansing, etc., etc.
>>> These parts were called on to handle relatively small
>>> amounts of power and therefore were easily overdesigned
>>> and overbuilt. They overcame the expense and relatively
>>> rarely of complementary driver and output devices. They
>>> were eliminated as a cost-saving move when appropriate
>>> (complementary - similar transistors that were available
>>> as both NPN and PNP parts) became widely available at
>>> low cost.
>
>> Dynaco (ST-120, ST-80) and H-K (Citation 12) used
>> complementary drivers to drive their output transistors.
>
> That became the standard way to do things, once complmentary drivers became
> cheap and readily avaialble. The only signficant change since then has been
> the use of true complementary output devices instead of compound pairs where
> only the low-powered devices were complementary.
>
>> It worked fine, but when one 2N3055 "went" it usually
>> took the two driver transistors with it (and often the
>> other 2N3055, as well).
>
> If one fixes a lot of blown output stages one finds that this pattern
> continues to this day. If you blow an output device, it often takes the
> direct-coupled driver with it. Some output devices seem to have built-in
> fuses, which fail in open circuits instead of shorts. This tends to make
> failures less catastrophic.
>
>>> The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
>>> protection circuits that contributed to their
>>> longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
>>> reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.
>
>> Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150 or
>> the D300 sounded "fine".
>
> It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the relevant equipment to
> dispel many of these audiophile myths.

There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very reliable way of
discerning differences in audio components due to a myriad of human factors:
lack of system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of having to
"perform", listening fatigue among the listeners, etc. I don't pretend to
know about this, but a friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has
been privy to some research along these lines. He says that the results of
this study will be published when the study is concluded . Of course, if DBT
isn't applicable to this audio, I don't know what would be.
>
>>>> Something you couldn't say of the early Dynacos or the
>>>> Harman-Kardon Citation 12, or any other 40-60
>>>> Watt/channel amps using 2N3055 output devices...).
>
>>> The Citation 12 did not use 2N3055 output devices. Its
>>> output devices were RCA 40636's which were similar, but
>>> then so were very many other silicon power transistors
>>> of the day.
>
>> The kit I built certainly used 2N3055s,
>
>
> Last-minute parts substitutions at the factory are possibe 40636s are
> pin-compatible with 2N3055s. In fact these devices were highly variable
> when produced and selected by testing on the production line. The specified
> tolerances were broad enough that type number substitutions, or remarking of
> devices was often an option.
>
>
>>> The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
>>> devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to 2N3772
>>> types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120 appears
>>> to have been factory built and shows no signs of parts
>>> replacements or other maintenance. It came with 2N3772
>>> output devices.
>
>> And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
>> 'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.
>
> Except that there was no offical later model, just the simple fact that the
> parts in the boxes changed from time to time.

No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.

>> Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover notch, It's easy to
>> see on the oscilloscope with a sine wave test tone. By
>> the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
>> audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.
>
> The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine and High Fidelity
> magazine in 1966-67 lacked these alleged obvious faults.

They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had noticed it. Those magazines
were a direct PR outlet for the industry.
>
>> IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
>> came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
>> Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).
>
> The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably because it involved
> upgrading some transistors with parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for
> TI Plastic).

Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.

>> The problem
>> with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
>> just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
>> Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
>> you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
>> weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
>> goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
>> other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
>> pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
>> that of the ST-120, as well.
>
> I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible differences would
> disappear were proper DBT listening producedures actually be used.

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


> There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where someone started
scouting up
> the details of the TIP mod to address audible distortion, but the person
> asking the questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening the
> speaker cables.

So he never made the modification? Too bad, It would be interesting to hear
about what differences were noted in light of todays essentially colorless
amplifiers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):

>>>>> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
>>>>> transformers
>>
>>>> A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
>>>> service manuals can be found here:
>>>> http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
>>>> McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps
>>>> you can find some?

>> There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS
>> amps at the cited location, and none of them have
>> coupling transformers.
>
> That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking
> for them.

You seem to be comfortable making and sticking to claims that fail any
reasonble documentation search.
>>>> The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
>>>> protection circuits that contributed to their
>>>> longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
>>>> reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.
>>
>>> Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150
>>> or > the D300 sounded "fine".

>> It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the
>> relevant equipment to dispel many of these audiophile
>> myths.

> There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very
> reliable way of discerning differences in audio
> components due to a myriad of human factors: lack of
> system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of
> having to "perform", listening fatigue among the
> listeners, etc.

This is all very old news, and it has been rebutted quite effectively with
no response other than the next repetition of teh same old news.

When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cherished
beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to the
demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.

> I don't pretend to know about this, but a
> friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has been
> privy to some research along these lines. He says that
> the results of this study will be published when the
> study is concluded . Of course, if DBT isn't applicable
> to this audio, I don't know what would be.

This is common red herring that we hear. Some mysterious as-yet undocumented
research that will finally pull the audiophile myths out of the fire they
have been deservedly been roasted in.


>>>> The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
>>>> devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to
>>>> 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120
>>>> appears to have been factory built and shows no signs
>>>> of parts replacements or other maintenance. It came
>>>> with 2N3772 output devices.

>>> And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
>>> 'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.

>> Except that there was no offical later model, just the
>> simple fact that the parts in the boxes changed from
>> time to time.

> No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.

Since the equipment has serial numbers, that would be a logical choice.


>>> Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
>>> notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine
>>> wave test tone. By
>>> the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
>>> audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.
>>
>> The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine
>> and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked these
>> alleged obvious faults.

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

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

>Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
> industry.

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


>>> IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
>>> came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
>>> Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).

>> The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably
>> because it involved upgrading some transistors with
>> parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for TI Plastic).

> Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.

>>> The problem
>>> with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
>>> just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
>>> Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
>>> you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
>>> weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
>>> goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
>>> other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
>>> pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
>>> that of the ST-120, as well.

>> I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible
>> differences would disappear were proper DBT listening
>> producedures actually be used.

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

I don't know what reliable basis you have for making that claim. It is
clearly one that has financial benefits for the high end audio industry.

Are those the words of a reviewer who accepts bending the truth in the form
of hyperbole?

>> There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where
>> someone started scouting up the details of the TIP mod
>> to address audible distortion, but the person asking the
>> questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening
>> the speaker cables.

> So he never made the modification?

So it seems. He was very pragmatic - he was able to get good sound without
doing violence to the equipment. I suspect that a lot of high end
audiophiles damn good equipment when the fault is in their own sloppy work.

> Too bad, It would be
> interesting to hear about what differences were noted in
> light of todays essentially colorless amplifiers.

In order to properly comment on colorless amplifiers, you need colorless
listening tests, not the bias-ridden sighted evaluations that the high end
press has staked their credibility on.

I would love to have someone come up with a more effective means for doing
listening evaluations than DBTs. Of course for that to happen, the high end
rumor mill would be forced to come up with a viable alternative that
addressed the egregious bias problems that are inherent in sighted
evaluations.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:49:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:07:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:13:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>
>>>>>> Or the early McIntosh SS deigns that used coupling
>>>>>> transformers
>>>
>>>>> A comprehensive archive of McIntosh schematics and
>>>>> service manuals can be found here:
>>>>> http://www.tubebooks.org/mcintosh_data.htm I find no
>>>>> McIntosh SS amps with coupling transformers. Perhaps
>>>>> you can find some?
>
>>> There's plenty of schematics of McIntosh SS
>>> amps at the cited location, and none of them have
>>> coupling transformers.
>>
>> That's your problem, not mine. After all, I'm not looking
>> for them.
>
> You seem to be comfortable making and sticking to claims that fail any
> reasonble documentation search.
>>>>> The Crown SS power amps had conservatively rated SOA
>>>>> protection circuits that contributed to their
>>>>> longetivity. As long as you stayed clear of highly
>>>>> reactive speaker loads, they sounded fine.
>>>
>>>> Matter of opinion. I never thought that the Crown D150
>>>> or > the D300 sounded "fine".
>
>>> It seems like one has to do careful DBTs with the
>>> relevant equipment to dispel many of these audiophile
>>> myths.
>
>> There is emerging evidence that DBT might not be a very
>> reliable way of discerning differences in audio
>> components due to a myriad of human factors: lack of
>> system familiarity among the listeners, the anxiety of
>> having to "perform", listening fatigue among the
>> listeners, etc.
>
> This is all very old news, and it has been rebutted quite effectively with
> no response other than the next repetition of teh same old news.
>
> When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cherished
> beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to the
> demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
> amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
> forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
> non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.
>
>> I don't pretend to know about this, but a
>> friend of mine who is a psychologist/audiophile has been
>> privy to some research along these lines. He says that
>> the results of this study will be published when the
>> study is concluded . Of course, if DBT isn't applicable
>> to this audio, I don't know what would be.
>
> This is common red herring that we hear. Some mysterious as-yet undocumented
> research that will finally pull the audiophile myths out of the fire they
> have been deservedly been roasted in.

I think you're overlooking something. In most scientific DBT tests, the
purpose of the test is not to form some consensus of opinion, but is, rather,
to ascertain facts that might be otherwise hidden by false positives, placebo
effect, etc. For instance, drug tests are not looking for an opinion about
the efficacy of the drug they are looking for real physical results from that
drug. Control subjects with the condition that the drug is supposed to treat
are given placebos, other subjects are given the drug under test. The purpose
is to find out if the drug is effective and this is ascertained by physicians
examining the subjects. Of course the subjects don't know which group they're
in and neither do their attending physicians. But the fact is that the test
is not looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for improvements in a
medical condition. Either the drugs improve the patients' condition or they
don't. The subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or not). In an audio
DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion and is mentally participating .
Quite a different thing.

>>>>> The Dyna 120 was originally shipped with 2N3055 output
>>>>> devices but they were quickly upgraded by Dyna to
>>>>> 2N3772 types which were an uprated device. My Dyna 120
>>>>> appears to have been factory built and shows no signs
>>>>> of parts replacements or other maintenance. It came
>>>>> with 2N3772 output devices.
>
>>>> And was a later model that did NOT have the heavy class
>>>> 'B' biasing, and thus no crossover notch.
>
>>> Except that there was no offical later model, just the
>>> simple fact that the parts in the boxes changed from
>>> time to time.
>
>> No, you just have to go by manufacturing date, apparently.
>
> Since the equipment has serial numbers, that would be a logical choice.
>
>
>>>> Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
>>>> notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a sine
>>>> wave test tone. By
>>>> the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
>>>> audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had moved-on.
>>>
>>> The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio magazine
>>> and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked these
>>> alleged obvious faults.
>
>> They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had noticed it.
>
> I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars or at least forcably
> bend the truth in ways that are detrimental to their readers. Strange.

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

There are two types of "buff" publications: The first type owes it's first
allegiance to its advertisers. The second type owes its first allegiance to
its readers. Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were both the first type.
That's why the second type (Stereophile and The Absolute Sound) were founded.
For a long time neither of the latter two carried any advertising at all. I
remember more than once, either harry Pearson or Gordon Holt coming right out
and saying that such-and-such was a piece of s__t.

Of course, today, SR and HF are long gone, and now Stereophile and TAS are
THE mainstream US hi-fi publications and both are owned by different people
than those who started them and their editorial policies are much different.
Since both carry advertising now, I cannot say for sure that they too haven't
become the first type that I outlined above.

>> Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
>> industry.
>
> Not necessarily a problem as long as they are constrained by the truth.

By definition, it is a big problem. Have you ever seen a PR release for a
product that extolled that product's mediocrity? Of course not. To my
knowledge, Dynaco never released any PR information or any specifications
which stated that "Our new ST-120 runs in hard class 'B' and has a new
feature called 'crossover notch distortion' which we think improves the
sound." And neither SR or HF would EVER report anything that might put an
advertiser's (or possible advertisers') products in a bad light. HF,
initially, had a policy that they wouldn't publish the reviews of any piece
of equipment that didn't meet the manufacturer's specs. Later, they changed
their policy to simply not mentioning any shortfalls in performance that they
encountered (it was mostly this policy, according to Gordon Holt, that caused
him to quit HF and eventually found Stereophile).. Then there was Julian
Hirsch. Mr. Hirsch, who "reviewed" equipment for Stereo Review for more than
30 years, apparently never met an audio component that he didn't like. His
tag line, which summed-up almost every review he ever wrote: "Of course, the
(name and model of unit under test goes here) like all modern (preamps,
amplifiers, receivers, CD players, tuners, you name it) has no sound of it's
own...", became somewhat of a audiophile joke for years. His reviews were so
uncritical that they weren't worth reading by anybody except the
manufacturer, their PR firm, and their dealers.

>>>> IIRC, it was Bob Orban who showed me how to fix mine. He
>>>> came up with a re-biasing scheme which was similar to
>>>> Dyna's later fix (he had a ST-120 as well).
>
>>> The offical Dyna mod is called "The TIP mod" probably
>>> because it involved upgrading some transistors with
>>> parts whose numbers started out "TIP" (for TI Plastic).
>
>> Didn't know the what they called it. Thanks.
>
>>>> The problem
>>>> with the 2N3055s that Dyna used was that you couldn't
>>>> just replace them with off-the-shelf replacement parts.
>>>> Dyna selected the 2N3055s for V-sub-BE (I believe) and
>>>> you had to buy your replacements from the factory (they
>>>> weren't even marked as 2N3055s). I got tired of the
>>>> goddamn thing blowing first one channel and then the
>>>> other, so I moved on to a used Citation two, (which was
>>>> pretty bulletproof) and I liked the sound better than
>>>> that of the ST-120, as well.
>
>>> I stongly suspect that many of these alleged audible
>>> differences would disappear were proper DBT listening
>>> producedures actually be used.
>
>> Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
>> when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
>> transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
>> true for the last 8-10 years.
>
> I don't know what reliable basis you have for making that claim.

The reliable basis is that without the computer-based design tools employed
by modern circuit designers, it was difficult to make amplifying circuits
perfect. Each had its own character, which reflected the tastes of its
designer(s). Nowdays, most amps converge on being extremely neutral and do so
because the tools allow them to do that easily. It's a lot like any other
engineering problem. Computers have made what was difficult, very easy. For
instance, optics. It used to be that lenses were designed on a formula, and
once a formula was accepted everybody used the same one. When the Tessar
formula was found to yield a fairly well color-corrected 4-element camera
lens, everybody used it. Leica called it an Elmar, Schnieder called it a
Xenar, Kodak called it a 4-element Ektar, etc., Zoom lenses used to be
expensive because they were cut and try. With computers, lenses generally
design themselves. The designer enters the specs, the computer program does
the rest. The result is that today's modern lenses are very color correct,
have almost no pincushion or barrel distortion, are all highly antistigmatic
and many are achromatic (all three colors focus at the same point). These
things were difficult to do before computers, and in fact, exceptional lens
formulas were generally hit upon by accident (that's why everybody used a
good one once it was found). Now they routinely outperform the very best
lenses of just 20 or 30 years ago.

Car suspensions have undergone a similar revolution due to computers. At one
time a designer had basically two choices: Optimize the suspension for
handling, or optimize it for a smooth ride. Today computers can give the
designer BOTH without seriously compromising either.

The same seems to be true of modern computer tools for analog audio design.
Transparency is something that is relatively easy for the modern designer to
achieve, but this is a relatively recent thing and the tools just keep
getting better. There is far less difference between amplifiers these days
than there ever was in the past. The audiophile can no longer count on a
corporate "sound" to tune his system for him. They all sound very much alike,
and what differences there are aren't really worth splitting hairs over
(although some will still try).


It is
> clearly one that has financial benefits for the high end audio industry.

I'd say not. The high end audio industry is based, largely, on the upgrade
model. Any admission on their part of transparency, basically says to the
marketplace that everything sounds so much alike that there really isn't any
reason to upgrade unless your current equipment breaks. They have a vested
interest in maintaining the stance that there are vast differences between
components and, of course, theirs sound "best".

> Are those the words of a reviewer who accepts bending the truth in the form
> of hyperbole?

I don't know any reviewer that does bend the truth.

>>> There's an interesting exchange on Audio Asyluym where
>>> someone started scouting up the details of the TIP mod
>>> to address audible distortion, but the person asking the
>>> questions was able to resolve the problem by tightening
>>> the speaker cables.
>
>> So he never made the modification?
>
> So it seems. He was very pragmatic - he was able to get good sound without
> doing violence to the equipment. I suspect that a lot of high end
> audiophiles damn good equipment when the fault is in their own sloppy work.

Very possible. I am big proponent of the contact enhancer Stabilant 22 (used
to be sold to the audiophile market as "Tweek"). Use it on all connections,
make certain that your connections are gas-tight, and you shouldn't have any
problems on that score.

I'm sure that you think that the use of Stabilant 22 contact enhancer is
another of your audiophile myths. If so, I invite you to think again.
Stabilant 22 has a Mil-Spec number, a NASA spec number and an automotive SAE
spec number. Every connection on the space shuttle uses it, many connections
in car manufacturing use it.

As an example of its effectiveness, my classic Alfa Romeo is getting pretty
old, and I was having no luck at keeping the tail-lights working. Then I got
a brain storm. If Stabilant works so well on audio equipment, maybe it will
work on my tail-lights So I went through the system once again, this time
applying Stabilant 22 to the bulb-bases, the edge connector for each
tail-light assembly, etc. That was three years ago. I' haven't had a
tail-light problem since!

It's expensive, a 50 ML bottle costs about $70 these days, but it lasts for
years (the bottle I'm now on was only $45 when I bought it) and works like a
champ. It's the best. most effective "system tweak" an audiophile can buy.
and, unlike myrtle wood blocks, green pens, and speaker cable elevators, it
works. You can buy it from micro-tools:

http://tinyurl.com/4onn387

Again, I have no interest in Micro-tools, Stabilant or it's makers, Just
passing along info on a real system enhancement.

>> Too bad, It would be
>> interesting to hear about what differences were noted in
>> light of todays essentially colorless amplifiers.
>
> In order to properly comment on colorless amplifiers, you need colorless
> listening tests, not the bias-ridden sighted evaluations that the high end
> press has staked their credibility on.

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure that I agree that DBT IS that
colorless listening test. I'm not 100% convinced that DBT is as bias-free as
its advocates insist. It might be free of sighted bias and expectational bias
on an equipment level, but there are other kinds of biases, the human kind,
that don't yield so easily to the scientific method. Like I said earlier,
however, if DBT does turn out to be a flawed methodology for audio, then I
couldn't begin to tell you what an alternative could be. At any rate, I'm
not religiously tied to any theory or methodology, and remain ambivalent
about the efficacy of DBT. While I tend to support it when it comes to cables
and interconnects (because electronics theory and measurements say that there
CAN'T be any difference). I'm not so sure about active devices such as
amplifiers DACs CD players and the like, because my experience with them and
the DBTs I've been involved with to test them is at such variance with the
conventional wisdom (and yours).


> I would love to have someone come up with a more effective means for doing
> listening evaluations than DBTs.

You and me both, brother!

>Of course for that to happen, the high end
> rumor mill would be forced to come up with a viable alternative that
> addressed the egregious bias problems that are inherent in sighted
> evaluations.

That's a tall order, and I think it's ultimately, too tall.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:

> In most scientific DBT tests, the purpose of the test is not to form
> some consensus of opinion, but is, rather, to ascertain facts that
> might be otherwise hidden by false positives, placebo effect,
> etc. For instance, drug tests are not looking for an opinion about
> the efficacy of the drug they are looking for real physical results
> from that drug. Control subjects with the condition that the drug is
> supposed to treat are given placebos, other subjects are given the
> drug under test. The purpose is to find out if the drug is effective
> and this is ascertained by physicians examining the subjects. Of
> course the subjects don't know which group they're in and neither do
> their attending physicians. But the fact is that the test is not
> looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for improvements in a
> medical condition. Either the drugs improve the patients' condition
> or they don't. The subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or
> not). In an audio DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion and
> is mentally participating . Quite a different thing.

How is that any different from saying "On a scale of 0 to 10, how bad
is the pain today?" Sound is subjective; pain is subjective.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 29, 6:49=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> When some people are faced with evidence that disagrees with their cheris=
hed
> beliefs, many go into denial. For many it is not sufficient to stick to t=
he
> demonstrable facts, which is that it was possible to make the early Crown
> amplifiers misbehave with some speakers. It was necessary to paint them
> forever with the blackest possible brush. That's one difference between
> non-productive hyperbole-ridden audiophile myth and true science.
>

Ah the "science" flag has been waved. 'True science" no less. Well
show us the "true science" that supports your positions Arny? You
opened the door now lest see you walk the walk. In case you need a
little refresher course on what is veiwed by the sicentific community
as true science in such matters here you go
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to
decide which research results should be published in a scientific
journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers
to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers)
before they are made public.

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

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

Nice little review no?

So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published studies that
support your assertions on audibility and inaudibility of various
electronics in the audio chain. If you can't I suggest you put away
that science flag.

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 26, 12:24=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> We all assume that today's new equipment is so much better than yesterday=
's.
> New materials, improved technology, better components; all conspire to gi=
ve
> us levels of performance unheard of a generation ago. =A0Certainly that's=
true
> with speakers, today's CD players certainly outperform those of the mid
> '80's, Today's phono cartridges are better than those of vinyl's heyday, =
as
> are arms, and to a certain extent, turntables. But what about electronics=
? Of
> course they're better, they just have to be. Better circuits, better
> capacitors, better resistors, modern output devices etc. Well, I had that
> smug conviction badly shaken recently.
>
> An audiophile buddy of mine called to say that he had a couple of "new"
> acquisitions that he wanted my opinion of. When he showed-up, I was somew=
hat
> amused. His "new" equipment consisted of a pair of MONO Eico HF-20 integr=
ated
> amplifiers from the 1950s. My friend had recently bought these from dispa=
rate
> sources. He had run across one of them about a year ago at a garage sale =
and
> was so impressed with it that he bought it and then started looking for a
> mate (for stereo). Well, he recently found =A0the mate to the unit and so
> equipped he started their "resurrection". The hardest part was replacing =
the
> multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no lo=
nger
> available), which he did with modern tubular capacitors from Rubicon moun=
ted
> under the chassis (where there was plenty of room). He then cleaned the
> controls, replaced the tubes, and fired them up. They both sounded fine, =
It
> was then that he called me.
>
> Now, my main speakers are a pair of Martin-Logan Vista electrostatic hybr=
ids.
> I was skeptical that a pair of =A020-Watt amps could drive the M-Ls , but=
was
> willing to try. After making two-pairs of spade-lug-to-banana-jack adapte=
rs
> (the old Eicos had those phenolic strip screw terminal speaker connection=
s on
> the back which won't accommodate today's spade-lugs (screws are too close=
to
> one another), much less a pair of banana plugs), we fired the amps up aft=
er
> connecting them to my Sony XA777-ES SACD/CD player.
>
> The first thing that I noticed was that while my guess was that the amp
> wouldn't be able to elicit more than a peep from the M-Ls, I was quite wr=
ong.
> I got normal listening levels with the volume control only cracked to abo=
ut
> the 10 o'clock position (all the way closed is about 8 o'clock). That was
> startling enough, but what came next was even more startling. =A0The amps
> sounded every bit as good as any modern amp. Now, I didn't do any DBTs
> against my reference amp or any such thing as that, I just listened. The
> little Eicos had solid, tight bass (often a failing of older tube amps) b=
ut
> these had huge output transformers for their power - easily as big as the
> Acrosound untra-linear transformers that rival Dynaco used in their MK II
> monoblock amps (50 Watts/channel), and I attrubute their decent bass to
> those! =A0Mids were clear and clean with good presence on vocals. Highs w=
ere
> clean, articulate, and didn't sound particularly rolled-off. =A0This real=
ly
> surprised me as the impedance of the M-Ls drops to under 2 Ohms at 20 Khz=
..
>
> The only place I noticed any distress at all was on loud crescendos or wh=
en I
> pushed the amp to high average levels of volume with the control well pas=
t
> the noon position. At that point things started to get a little thick
> sounding. I get the general idea that with more efficient loudspeakers, t=
hese
> little amps would equate themselves very handsomely at all volume levels =
with
> any kind of music. =A0I could happily live with them as my main system if
> coupled to a decent pair of high-efficiency speakers. My friend plays the=
m
> through a pair of recently acquired Warfedale W60Ds with a vintage Thoren=
s
> TD-150 turntable/arm and a Sumiko Blue-Point Special cartridge. I'll bet =
the
> combo sounds marvelous. I almost envy him.

Aw, fer crissakes!

Guys and gals - this is a hobby - And this forum exists to support
that hobby. There are cutting edge technologies out there, there are
vintage technologies out there and they all have their place in the
choir. Permit some 'observations' i.e.: Opinions that I hold. Not holy
writ by any means.

1. It is impossible to get the same performance out of a pair of
earbuds, computer-speakers or even very good headphones as out of a
pair of even moderately decent full-range speakers. These smaller
items simply cannot move enough air to permit any sort of ambience
outside of the skull. I do have a pair of rather good headphones - and
they are used _only_ when courtesy requires, never by preference.

2. I would never argue that tubes are better than solid-state. However
I would argue that as-applied-in-real-life, many good tube amplifiers
sound better than many solid-state amplifiers of the same approximate
power rating. Much of that has to do with behavior at the margins as
most (but not all) tube equipment clips softly whereas most (but not
all) solid state equipment does not. And some ears prefer the
colorations of tube equipment.

3. Very good speakers driven by very good electronics are incredibly
revealing. And that is not always a 'good' thing. With well-recorded,
well engineered, well played music it mostly is. Otherwise, the mud &
fudge added by inherent limitations hides other defects.

4. Vinyl shares the same general characteristics of tubes. Some prefer
its colorations, and very good vinyl systems sound very good indeed.
Is it necessarily exactly what was recorded in the same way as with a
CD or other digital source? No. But neither is that the point.

5. Headroom will do more for a conventional/traditional stereo system
than any other single user-operable input. All other things being
equal, a 500 watt amp will sound better (more revealing) than a 10
watt amp. Although a 100 watt amp might not. So ultra-clean high-
wattage power amps are a definite addition to the hobby - although by
accident of being so revealing that may not necessarily be
appreciated. Too often I have seen defects in the recording process
attributed to 'brittle' amplification.

6. Audio is much like wine - a matter of preference, experience,
availability and the moment. Our audio memory is generally wretched,
inaccurate and wildly distorted such that even 24 hours after an
experience there will be _NO_ reliable memory for it. Much as a wine
one day enjoyed with tacos the next day is nasty with fresh fish - but
we remember it as good from the previous day and therefore blame the
fish.

Just recently, I almost entirely reconfigured the "main" system. The
only two items from the previous configuration are the CD changer and
the tuner/pre-amp. Changed out were the speakers (MGAs replaced by MG-
IIIs) and the power-amp (Revox A722 replaced by a Citation 16). Sound
pretty wonderful. Also pretty ancient given that the newest item on
the table is the changer at 6. Tuner/pre-amp at 37, power-amp at 35,
speakers at 30+. The previous system was more-or-less unchanged for 3
years - and the change was driven by the opportunity to obtain a very-
nearly-perfect set of MG-IIIs for sparrow-feed. Cosmetics being the
only-and-very-minor issue. I expect I am getting more fun and pleasure
out of <$2,000 worth of stuff than many here get out of their much
more costly equipment. Opinion based on some of the discussions here,
not a judgment.

In any case, ENJOY fer crissakes.....

Been lurking for over a year - and then saw this... Yikes!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


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

This differs from audio DBTs how?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

> and is mentally participating.

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

> Quite a different thing.

At some level everything's different, so what?

>>>>> Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
>>>>> notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a
>>>>> sine wave test tone. By
>>>>> the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
>>>>> audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had
>>>>> moved-on.
>>>>
>>>> The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio
>>>> magazine and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked
>>>> these alleged obvious faults.
>>
>>> They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had
>>> noticed it.
>>
>> I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars
>> or at least forcably bend the truth in ways that are
>> detrimental to their readers. Strange.

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

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

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

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

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

As is Stereophile and Absolute Sound.

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

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

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

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

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

ound and Vision still has a competitive subscriber base.

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

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

>>> Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
>>> industry.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no need to make amplifying circuits perfect.

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

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

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

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

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

Since 1968, if not earlier.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


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

Those would relate to negative hypothesis.

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

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


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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I think you're overlooking something. In most scientific
>> DBT tests, the purpose of the test is not to form some
>> consensus of opinion, but is, rather, to ascertain facts
>> that might be otherwise hidden by false positives,
>> placebo effect, etc.
>
> This differs from audio DBTs how?
>
>> For instance, drug tests are not
>> looking for an opinion about the efficacy of the drug
>> they are looking for real physical results from that
>> drug.
>
> In a similar fashion, audio DBTs are looking for a real physical effect on
> human perceptions.

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

>
>> Control subjects with the condition that the drug
>> is supposed to treat are given placebos, other subjects
>> are given the drug under test. The purpose is to find out
>> if the drug is effective and this is ascertained by
>> physicians examining the subjects.
>
> Audiophiles tell us that they don't need an attending physician to know
> whether they are hearing a difference. I'll check the room for an attending
> physican the next time I visit a high end audio store. Maybe things have
> changed... ;-)
>
>> Of course the subjects
>> don't know which group they're in and neither do their
>> attending physicians. But the fact is that the test is
>> not looking for anybody's opinions, it's looking for
>> improvements in a medical condition. Either the drugs
>> improve the patients' condition or they don't. The
>> subjects merely have to let the drugs work (or not).
>
> Right, and either the audiophile's "new clothes" make a difference, or they
> don't.

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

>> In an audio DBT, the subject is asked for his/her opinion
>
> Not an opinion, just simply whether they hear a difference.

ER, that would be an opinion.

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

I never said that it does.

>> Quite a different thing.
>
> At some level everything's different, so what?

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

>>>>>> Every one that I ever looked at had the crossover
>>>>>> notch, It's easy to see on the oscilloscope with a
>>>>>> sine wave test tone. By
>>>>>> the time Dynaco "fixed" the ST-120, most of the
>>>>>> audiophiles that I knew (including myself) had
>>>>>> moved-on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very early Dyna's that were tested by Audio
>>>>> magazine and High Fidelity magazine in 1966-67 lacked
>>>>> these alleged obvious faults.
>>>
>>>> They wouldn't have mentioned it even if they had
>>>> noticed it.
>>>
>>> I see a a reviewer saying that all reviewers are liars
>>> or at least forcably bend the truth in ways that are
>>> detrimental to their readers. Strange.
>
>> I'm saying nothing of the kind, please don't undertake to
>> put words in my mouth.
>
> If memory serves many of these reviews showed technical tests that would
> have demonstrated the alleged notch distortion, had it existed.
>
>> There are two types of "buff" publications: The first
>> type owes it's first allegiance to its advertisers. The
>> second type owes its first allegiance to its readers.
>
> The only ones that owes their first allegiance to the listeners are the ones
> that don't depend on equipment loans from dealers and manufacturers and
> don't carry any ads.

That's not really true. Or at least it didn't use to be true. Don't know
about Stereophile and TAS today. Years ago, manufacturers loaned these
publications equipment and if they weren't good, these publications said so!
>
>> Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were both the first type.
>
> As is Stereophile and Absolute Sound.

Now, maybe. But they weren't when they started
>
>> That's why the second type (Stereophile and The Absolute
>> Sound) were founded.
>
> But, they both sold out to their equipment vendors, one way or the other.
>
>> For a long time neither of the
>> latter two carried any advertising at all. I remember
>> more than once, either harry Pearson or Gordon Holt
>> coming right out and saying that such-and-such was a
>> piece of s__t.
>
> It's been a long time since I've seen that!

Agreed, but irrelevant to the point - which you seem to have wandered away
from.
>
>> Of course, today, SR and HF are long gone, and now
>> Stereophile and TAS are THE mainstream US hi-fi
>> publications and both are owned by different people than
>> those who started them and their editorial policies are
>> much different.
>
> Sound and Vision still has a competitive subscriber base.
>
>> Since both carry advertising now, I
>> cannot say for sure that they too haven't become the
>> first type that I outlined above.
>
> The hidden agenda all along was that even if they didn't carry ads, they
> were dependent on vendor loans.

But they didn't care whether or not they got them. Lots of vendors woauldn't
loan equipment top either. Guess what? Their equipment went un-reviewed.
>
>>>> Those magazines were a direct PR outlet for the
>>>> industry.
>
>>> Not necessarily a problem as long as they are
>>> constrained by the truth.
>
>> By definition, it is a big problem. Have you ever seen a
>> PR release for a product that extolled that product's
>> mediocrity? Of course not. To my knowledge, Dynaco never
>> released any PR information or any specifications which
>> stated that "Our new ST-120 runs in hard class 'B' and
>> has a new feature called 'crossover notch distortion'
>> which we think improves the sound."
>
>
> AFAIK, those are audiophile myths. I'm still awaiting hard evidence.
>
>> And neither SR or HF
>> would EVER report anything that might put an advertiser's
>> (or possible advertisers') products in a bad light. HF,
>> initially, had a policy that they wouldn't publish the
>> reviews of any piece of equipment that didn't meet the
>> manufacturer's specs. Later, they changed their policy to
>> simply not mentioning any shortfalls in performance that
>> they encountered (it was mostly this policy, according to
>> Gordon Holt, that caused him to quit HF and eventually
>> found Stereophile).. Then there was Julian Hirsch. Mr.
>> Hirsch, who "reviewed" equipment for Stereo Review for
>> more than 30 years, apparently never met an audio
>> component that he didn't like.
>
> Wrong. It was well known that they received a lot of equipment for which
> they never published reviews, for one reason or the other. They simply
> followed the polite rule that if they couldn't say something good, they
> published nothing.

Which is different from what I said, how? If you only review equipment that
you like and don't review equipment that you don't like , or that isn't very
good, is it not going to be perceived by the reader that you never reviewed a
piece of equipment that you didn't like? That should be obvious.
>
>> His tag line, which
>> summed-up almost every review he ever wrote: "Of course,
>> the (name and model of unit under test goes here) like
>> all modern (preamps, amplifiers, receivers, CD players,
>> tuners, you name it) has no sound of it's own...", became
>> somewhat of a audiophile joke for years.
>
> We found that the joke was on the audiophiles - the characteristic sounds
> that they staked their billfolds on mysteriously went away when they
> couldn't see what they were listening to.

Not true at all and only somewhat true today.
>
>> His reviews were
>> so uncritical that they weren't worth reading by anybody
>> except the manufacturer, their PR firm, and their
>> dealers.
>
> Sez a lot of high enders who have no doubt been mislead by their prejudices
> over the year.
>
>>>> Maybe, maybe not (see above), but I doubt it. The era
>>>> when most audio circuits are good enough to be truly
>>>> transparent isn't that old. I'd say this has only been
>>>> true for the last 8-10 years.
>>>
>>> I don't know what reliable basis you have for making
>>> that claim.
>
>> The reliable basis is that without the computer-based
>> design tools employed by modern circuit designers, it was
>> difficult to make amplifying circuits perfect.
>
> There is no need to make amplifying circuits perfect.
>
> We did DBTs that showed that the circuit diagrams in the 1968 RCA transistor
> manual produced sonically transparent power amps.

Permit me to doubt those results.
>
> Many designers tried to *improve* on their sonics, and some of us even
> invested in those stories, but they just weren't true.
>
>> Each had
>> its own character, which reflected the tastes of its
>> designer(s).
>
> A hypothesis that has failed virtually every DBT that was done to support
> it.
>
>> Nowdays, most amps converge on being
>> extremely neutral and do so because the tools allow them
>> to do that easily.
>
> Since 1968, if not earlier.


That's either complete balderdash or you and I have VASTLY different criteria
for neutrality and transparency. I suspect the latter.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 29, 1:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
> > studies that support your assertions on audibility and
> > inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>
> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>
> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Playbac=
k
> chain":
>
> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Au=
dio
> Playback."
> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 29, 1:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
>>> studies that support your assertions on audibility and
>>> inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>>
>> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>>
>> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
>> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Playbac=
> k
>> chain":
>>
>> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Au=
> dio
>> Playback."
>> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
>> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
>> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
>
> Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
> body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
> of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
> something.

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

[Peter Wieck]

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 30, 3:55=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 1:14=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
> >>> studies that support your assertions on audibility and
> >>> inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>
> >> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>
> >> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
> >> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Play=
bac=3D
> > k
> >> chain":
>
> >> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution=
Au=3D
> > dio
> >> Playback."
> >> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
> >> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
> >> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
>
> > Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
> > body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
> > of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
> > something.
>
> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=
t.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

>> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=
> t.
>> He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =
> so.
>> It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
>> instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=
> er or
>> not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
>> propositions.
>
> William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
> heartbeat.
>
> Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
> explanation? That it does or that it does not?
>
> That it does not seems to require a great deal of esoteric explanation
> as well as solid, repeatable reasons not yet in evidence. That it does
> is more-or-less self-evident as it seems to have done in the past and
> will likely continue to do so in the future.
>
> Now, please give some clear, cogent and specific reasons why this
> should not be so. And such reasons should withstand rigorous testing,
> of course.
>
> I am no great fan of DBT as the full-and-final explanation of anything
> audio - as I believe that such tests are far too short to prove the
> full spectrum of how audio systems, parts or pieces interact with
> different individuals over time. What sounds good in a test setting
> over a few hours may not at home over a few days/weeks/months (nor is
> that necessarily due to the quality of the equipment either). But it
> is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually make a
> difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
> fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
> Sadly.
>

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

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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 30, 3:55=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 1:14=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
>>>>> studies that support your assertions on audibility and
>>>>> inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>>
>>>> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>>
>>>> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs are
>>>> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Play=
> bac=3D
>>> k
>>>> chain":
>>
>>>> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution=
> Au=3D
>>> dio
>>>> Playback."
>>>> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
>>>> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
>>>> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
>>
>>> Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
>>> body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support any
>>> of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
>>> something.
>>
>> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=
> t.
>> He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =
> so.
>> It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
>> instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=
> er or
>> not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
>> propositions
>
> Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
> evidence in the world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not something
> one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
> a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
> scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
> been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
> are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
> yet to show otherwise.

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> Which merely points to the fact that the body of
>> scientifically valid evidence in the world of
>> audiophilia is painfully thin.
>
> Your first error is the false assertion that any paper that is not
> peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.
>
> Your second error is ignoring the fact that as thin as scientific support
> for a critical view of audiophile myths may be, its infinitely more than the
> scientific support for audiophile myths.
>
>> Not something one can
>> stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in
>> defense of a particular subjective opinion on the
>> audibility of things. No scientist worth their salt would
>> make any definitive claims as have been made based on
>> this body of evidence.
>
> Yet another error. In fact modern audio technology as we know it is entirely
> based on the existing body of scientific evidence. High end audio wisdom if
> applied to recent audio or video advances would result in products that are
> completely impractical.
>
> For example, you can pay under $10 for a 4 meter HDMI cable that provides
> you with a perfect digital video, network and audio signal. If you prefer
> high end audio "science" you can pay $229 for a Monster "1000HD Ultimate
> High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet" that delivers the identical same bits.
>
>

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 30, 10:21=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Which merely points to the fact that the body of
> > scientifically valid evidence in the =A0world of
> > audiophilia is painfully thin.
>
> Your first error is the false assertion that any paper that is not
> peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.

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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Which merely points to the fact that the body of
>>> scientifically valid evidence in the world of
>>> audiophilia is painfully thin.

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

> I never said it was "invalid"

You implied it about as clearly as you could.

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Wieck]

Please note the interpolations. Please forgive the cynicism
expressed.


[ Please attribute your quotations. --dsr ]


> > William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
> > heartbeat.
>
> > Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
> > explanation? That it does or that it does not?

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

>> But it is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually ma=
ke a
> > difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
> > fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
> > Sadly.
>
> There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes sighted and
> expectational bias from the equation. The test participants simply do not
> know which of the two units being compared they are listening to at any g=
iven
> point. Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of those tests on fa=
ith.

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

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

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

I.E., one second you are listening to component A, the
> next, component B. Since humans have such a poor aural memory (what we
> remember about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound which we =
take
> note of as we listen, not the sound itself), Any difference between the s=
ound
> of the two components should be the most noticeable at that point. Now, I
> know that this works fine for speakers - they all sound so different that
> those differences stick-out like a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect
> that differences between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
> though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges.

Been there - yes, they do.

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

Yes, they do.
>
> It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and DACs that I star=
t to
> get uneasy with the process.

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

> All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat =A0
> frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
> eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
> pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
> aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed fr=
om
> the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortio=
n
> that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive.

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

> These
> include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otal=
a),
> dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
> controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
> either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are bo=
th
> addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
> vanishingly low in modern analog devices.
>
> You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such=
as
> this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings=
,
> while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same reg=
ion.

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

> But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? =A0Some k=
ind of
> heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and eve=
n if
> these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in =
a
> DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
> statistically no difference between the two devices?

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

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

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

> These are
> questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate=
..
> And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle th=
at
> DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

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

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:06:35 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL ou=
>> t.
>>> He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month or =
>> so.
>>> It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of those
>>> instances where "if you accept the premise..." =A0The premise being wheth=
>> er or
>>> not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products and
>>> propositions.
>>
>> William of Occam would have that figured out in a hummingbird
>> heartbeat.
>>
>> Either it does or it does not. Which requires a more complex
>> explanation? That it does or that it does not?
>>
>> That it does not seems to require a great deal of esoteric explanation
>> as well as solid, repeatable reasons not yet in evidence. That it does
>> is more-or-less self-evident as it seems to have done in the past and
>> will likely continue to do so in the future.
>>
>> Now, please give some clear, cogent and specific reasons why this
>> should not be so. And such reasons should withstand rigorous testing,
>> of course.
>>
>> I am no great fan of DBT as the full-and-final explanation of anything
>> audio - as I believe that such tests are far too short to prove the
>> full spectrum of how audio systems, parts or pieces interact with
>> different individuals over time. What sounds good in a test setting
>> over a few hours may not at home over a few days/weeks/months (nor is
>> that necessarily due to the quality of the equipment either). But it
>> is an excellent way to screen whether something does actually make a
>> difference. No more. But very often that is enough. And very often
>> fatal to closely held beliefs and other forms of revealed religion.
>> Sadly.
>>
>
> There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes sighted and
> expectational bias from the equation. The test participants simply do not
> know which of the two units being compared they are listening to at any given
> point. Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of those tests on faith.
> It seems to be taken for granted that if there is a difference between the
> sound of two components, that these differences will be immediately apparent
> at the switch point. I.E., one second you are listening to component A, the
> next, component B. Since humans have such a poor aural memory (what we
> remember about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound which we take
> note of as we listen, not the sound itself), Any difference between the sound
> of the two components should be the most noticeable at that point. Now, I
> know that this works fine for speakers - they all sound so different that
> those differences stick-out like a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect
> that differences between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
> though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges. Perhaps analog tape
> recorders would exhibit similar results, I don't know.
>
> It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and DACs that I start to
> get uneasy with the process. All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat
> frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
> eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
> pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
> aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from
> the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortion
> that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive. These
> include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),
> dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
> controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
> either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are both
> addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
> vanishingly low in modern analog devices.
>
> You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such as
> this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings,
> while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same region.
> But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? Some kind of
> heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
> these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in a
> DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
> statistically no difference between the two devices? Would this result in a
> difference that might only show itself in long-term listening? These are
> questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate.
> And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
> DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over? That's a question
> that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - once
> the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.
>

Business concept:

DBT site

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

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

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

[bob]

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

> To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =
the
> ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground.

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

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

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

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

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 30, 12:29=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:40:59 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 3:55=3DA0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> >>> On Mar 29, 1:14=3D3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
> >>>>> studies that support your assertions on audibility and
> >>>>> inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>
> >>>> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>
> >>>> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs a=
re
> >>>> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Pl=
ay=3D
> > bac=3D3D
> >>> k
> >>>> chain":
>
> >>>> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resoluti=
on=3D
> > =A0Au=3D3D
> >>> dio
> >>>> Playback."
> >>>> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
> >>>> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
> >>>> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
>
> >>> Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
> >>> body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support an=
y
> >>> of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
> >>> something.
>
> >> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL=
ou=3D
> > t.
> >> He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month =
or =3D
> > so.
> >> It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of th=
ose
> >> instances where "if you accept the premise..." =3DA0The premise being =
wheth=3D
> > er or
> >> not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products a=
nd
> >> propositions
>
> > Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
> > evidence in the =A0world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not somethin=
g
> > one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
> > a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
> > scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
> > been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
> > are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
> > yet to show otherwise.
>
> To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =
the
> ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground. Most AE=
S
> papers are only available from the AES web site and they cost money. If o=
ne
> is an AES member they cost $5 to download each, if one is NOT an AES memb=
er,
> these research papers cost $20 each to download. The Meyer/Moran paper to
> which Arny keeps referring is one of the few that's available to download=
for
> free (but not from the AES) and, of course, it supports Arny's position o=
n
> this issue which doesn't hurt his argument at all. 8^)- Hide quoted text =
-
>

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

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:54:08 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article >):
<snip>
>> All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat =A0
>> frequency response and vanishingly low distortion these days, so that
>> eliminates two very important variables in the human auditory perception
>> pantheon. The two things that we most readily notice, frequency response
>> aberrations and high amounts of harmonic and IM distortion are removed fr=
> om
>> the equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types of distortio=
> n
>> that we can't easily measure, but to which the ear is sensitive.
>
> Either you will hear it or you will not. One of my favorite examples
> is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the 2N3055 output transistors. Great
> measurements, sounded like glass-in-a-blender. With a few basic mods,
> it became a (barely) reasonable unit. Measurements are not necessarily
> the final issue. What one hears is the issue. And I betcha that even
> you with a severe head-cold wearing ear-muffs could pick an early-
> version Dynaco from _any_ other amp in a DBT nine times in ten.

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

>> These
>> include, transient intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otal=
> a),
>> dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc. But these are
>> controversial. Many audio experts maintain that they don't exist, and in
>> either case, whether you believe them to be a factor, or not, they are bo=
> th
>> addressed in most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again is
>> vanishingly low in modern analog devices.
>>
>> You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the top octaves, such=
> as
>> this device lends a sandpaper-like quality to the reproduction of strings=
> ,
>> while this other device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same reg=
> ion.
>
> I read a lot of blather created by writers who have to justify their
> paychecks. I do not read information based on an opinion supported by
> observable facts. I also note that these same writers are bat-sh*t
> terrified of DBT as it would pretty much wipe out their species if
> adopted. And so will do all-and-everything-they-can to debunk it.

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

>> But what could account for these differences? noise modulation? =A0Some k=
> ind of
>> heretofore undiscovered distortion? This doesn't seem reasonable, and eve=
> n if
>> these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the switch point in =
> a
>> DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving rise to the result that there is
>> statistically no difference between the two devices?
>
> Yep. exactly that. And the problem with that would be?

The problem is that in such a case, the DBT would have told us NOTHING about
the amps in question.
>
>> Would this result in a
>> difference that might only show itself in long-term listening?
>
> Perhaps. Even possibly likely. And for any number of reasons.

Exactly.
>
>> These are
>> questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term listening debate=
> .
>> And this brings up one last question. If the differences are so subtle th=
> at
>> DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?
>
> Of course not. Obsession is the realm of closely held beliefs and
> revealed religion.

But religion, in any guise, is a very personal thing. Each person must decide
for him or herself what to believe. That goes for the religious aspect of
audio as well as the religious aspects of a supreme being.
>
>> That's a question
>> that every audio enthusiast is going to have to answer for themselves - o=
> nce
>> the DBT issue is put to rest, once and for all, of course.
>
> Not really. If only audio enthusiasts would stick to what their ears
> tell them, enjoy what their ears tell them and behave only based on
> what their ears tell them then the concept of DBT or not-DBT is
> entirely irrelevant - unless one is attempting to write doctrine and
> tenets of faith.

Yes, and some most assuredly are doing just that!

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

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

That is very true, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
>
> What you experience at home over the long term is not relevant to what
> DBT can tell you. THAT is based on what your ears tell you. No more.
> No less. And DBT was never meant to be anything more than a detailer
> of differences-if-any - more so - those differences-if-any audible (or
> not) to the target testers.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

> dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc.

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

> But these are controversial.

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

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

Agreed.

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

IOW poetry, not proper technical reports.

> But what could account for these differences?

Listener bias, plain and simple.

> noise modulation?

Listener bias, plain and simple.

> Some kind of heretofore undiscovered distortion?

Listener bias, plain and simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In general, of course not.

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

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

[Peter Wieck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message


> Either you will hear it or you will not.

Are you sure about that?

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

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 30, 6:14=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On Mar 30, 3:29=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> > To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin o=
n the
> > ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground.
>
> Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
> afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
> is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
> illiteracy in order to remain coherent. It's only possible to argue,
> over and over again, that "evidence is thin on the ground" if your
> basic posture is one of willful ignorance. The only place the evidence
> is thin is inside the heads of people who don't want to know.
>
> The scientific case against the general audibility of differences
> between cables/amps/DACs is based on a century and a half of
> psychoacoustic research into the limits of human hearing perception.
> We have a pretty good idea of the magnitudes of differences that are
> and are not discernible. And we know that the differences between
> audio components other than transducers generally do not exceed those
> levels. (We also know what the common exceptions are.) As a general
> rule, nobody publishes DBTs of audio components in scholarly journals
> because the findings don't ever tell us anything we didn't already
> know, and such journals are not looking for old news.
>
> Arny keeps posting the same article because it's the rare exception,
> and one can understand why the editors might have found it
> interesting. (I'll bet it's gotten more hits than anything else
> they've published in years.) But I don't think you'll find an article
> in JAES--or even an AES conference paper--comparing consumer CD
> players. What scientist would bother?
>
> DBTs of audio components are useful tools for testing differences when
> you aren't sure they're audible, and are especially useful if you
> really want to prove to the skeptics that you heard a difference,
> which is why objectivists always demand them of subjectivists. But
> they aren't the basis of the case, and they aren't the way real
> scientists have answered the question.
>


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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 30, 12:29=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:40:59 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 3:55=3DA0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:27:10 -0700, Scott wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>
>>>>> On Mar 29, 1:14=3D3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> So please Arny, show us the peer reviewed published
>>>>>>> studies that support your assertions on audibility and
>>>>>>> inaudibility of various electronics in the audio chain.
>>
>>>>>> Those would relate to negative hypothesis.
>>
>>>>>> Here is a recent peer reviewed paper that shows that DACs and ADCs a=
> re
>>>>>> inaudible when introduced into a so-called "High-Resolution Audio Pl=
> ay=3D
>>> bac=3D3D
>>>>> k
>>>>>> chain":
>>
>>>>>> "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resoluti=
> on=3D
>>> =A0Au=3D3D
>>>>> dio
>>>>>> Playback."
>>>>>> Authors: Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
>>>>>> Affiliation: Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
>>>>>> JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007
>>
>>>>> Hey! Not bad! A piece of evidence that can be added to the bare boned
>>>>> body of evidence in all things audiophilia. doesn't really support an=
> y
>>>>> of your assertions on amplifier sound though. But props for having
>>>>> something.
>>
>>>> Every time Arny gets in a DBT-related argument here, he trots this URL=
> ou=3D
>>> t.
>>>> He's posted this particular URL at least five times in the last month =
> or =3D
>>> so.
>>>> It's an interesting study, and seems well designed, but it's one of th=
> ose
>>>> instances where "if you accept the premise..." =3DA0The premise being =
> wheth=3D
>>> er or
>>>> not DBTs work for audio the way the work for other types of products a=
> nd
>>>> propositions
>>
>>> Which merely points to the fact that the body of scientifically valid
>>> evidence in the =A0world of audiophilia is painfully thin. Not somethin=
> g
>>> one can stand on when waving the proverbial science flag in defense of
>>> a particular subjective opinion on the audibility of things. No
>>> scientist worth their salt would make any definitive claims as have
>>> been made based on this body of evidence. One may as well claim there
>>> are in fact pink flying elephants on neptune since the evidence has
>>> yet to show otherwise.
>>
>> To be fair to Arny, the problem here is not that the evidence is thin on =
> the
>> ground, it's that FREE evidence on the web is thin on the ground. Most AE=
> S
>> papers are only available from the AES web site and they cost money. If o=
> ne
>> is an AES member they cost $5 to download each, if one is NOT an AES memb=
> er,
>> these research papers cost $20 each to download. The Meyer/Moran paper to
>> which Arny keeps referring is one of the few that's available to download=
> for
>> free (but not from the AES) and, of course, it supports Arny's position o=
> n
>> this issue which doesn't hurt his argument at all. 8^)- Hide quoted text =
> -
>>
>
> I'm not being unfair at all.

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


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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


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

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

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

> Audiophiles will believe what they will about the subject.

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

> It does not matter really.

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

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

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

>At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.

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

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

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

[Kulin Remailer]

bob > wrote:

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

Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 30, 1:12=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Which merely points to the fact that the body of
> >>> scientifically valid evidence in the world of
> >>> audiophilia is painfully thin.
> >> Your first error is the false assertion that any paper
> >> that is not peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.
> > I never said it was "invalid"
>
> You implied it about as clearly as you could.

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 31, 9:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Either you will hear it or you will not.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> > One of my
> > favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
> > 2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
> > like glass-in-a-blender.
>
> Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally unsupported
> audiophile myth?

Arnie:

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

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

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 31, 6:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I'm not being unfair at all. Even with the AESJ (which
> > honestly is a pretty light weight peer reviewed journal
> > in the world of science) there are no papers that offer
> > DBTs of amplifiers, or preamplifiers or many of the other
> > things that are so often debated here.
>
> The reason is pretty obvious. Neither Consumer's Union nor the AES are
> confused about the fact that they are completely different organizations.

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


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

You are not really in any position to be speaking for the AES.
>
> > Audiophiles will believe what they will about the subject.
>
> The web has made it far easier to spike audiophile myths and make that
> information generally available.

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

>
> > It does not matter really.
>
> Some of us would hope that we might help save music lovers a ton of money
> that might otherwise be spent on products with no reliable sonic value
> whatsoever.

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

>
> > But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject.
>
> Except it has, and only a tiny minority of true believers continue believ=
e
> in the face of considerably contrary evidence.

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

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


>
> >At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.
>
> I see Scott that you still aren't answering questions about peer-reviewed
> scientific studies justifying your personal investments in *questionable*
> audio panaceas.

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Kulin Remailer > wrote:
> bob > wrote:
> > Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
> > afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
> > is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
> > illiteracy in order to remain coherent.
>
> Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:
>
> I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularl=
y
> good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
> preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainl=
y a
> bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
> immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
> equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to ups=
et
> him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'=
m
> hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on a=
nd
> his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
> polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
> directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
> behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
> speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures wh=
ich
> were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turn=
ing
> the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
> polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person w=
ith
> no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
> and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend kne=
w
> before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poo=
r
> quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist where their ARE
>> differences. =A0That's what I'm wondering.
>
> DBT will only ferret out audible differences to *that* audience at
> *that* moment during *that* test.

Of course, but that's not the question. The REAL question is if a DBT returns
a null result, is it because their are no differences or because the
listening group found no differences? You know, most people aren't trained
listeners like most audiophiles. audio enthusiasts train temselves to listen
for minutia that the average person neither cares about nor listens for. An
analogous example of this kind of "selective attention to detail" that I am
talking about can be found in a friend of mine. He's a classic film buff who
worked in the industry for years. He hates modern film/TV making because they
use so much of what he calls "non-stabilized hand-held camera work" (meaning
that the camera is not locked-down for the shot nor is the operator using a
steady-cam). He won't watch any movie of TV show that he says uses it. Me? I
don't notice it unless it's pointed out to me, and even then I don't
particularly care. I'm watching the story unfold, not watching the cinema
technique. I suspect that many listeners are the same way. This minutia that
audio types obsess and agonize over is simply not noticed by by most people.
They just listen to the music. This lack of critical facility when it comes
to the technical side of music reproduction is manifest in the acceptance of
low bit-rate MP3. Most listeners don't notice (or care) that these MP3s don't
sound very good - and they make up the bulk of music listeners in the world
today.
>
> There may be many inaudible differences that will not be revealed by
> DBT. And any long-term effects from otherwise undiscernable
> differences may not be revealed during a short-term test. So what? DBT
> was never designed to do any more than compare items under mostly
> entirely artificial conditions over a very short period of time. As a
> process it cannot, nor was it ever meant to determine what you like,
> dictate what you should (or should not) hear nor much of anything
> else.

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with that assessment at all. I have heard differences in
amps as a result of a DBT but just a few minutes with either amp in question,
and those differences are quickly forgotten because they weren't important in
the first place. This wasn't always the case, but it is now. Anytime I hear
an audio enthusiast say that they don't like the sound of this new amplifier
or prefer the sound of that one, I look at them with jaundiced eye, and the
term "anal retentive personality" comes to mind. Every modern amp that I've
auditioned sounds just fine under normal listening conditions, and that
included the super-cheap $200 Behringer A-500! (just leave the volume
controls on the front panel at maximum!).
>
> Imagine a world where all this blather just went away - and
> individuals purchased and listened to only what they liked based only
> on what they heard? Entire industries (albeit mostly small ones) would
> crumble and die overnight - starting with the interconnect industry.
> It would not be pretty, but it would be well-deserved.

Amen, brother!

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

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

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

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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Either you will hear it or you will not.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
>> One of my
>> favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
>> 2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
>> like glass-in-a-blender.
>
> Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally unsupported
> audiophile myth?


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

[Audio Empire]

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

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There's no doubt in my mind that DBT testing removes
>> sighted and expectational bias from the equation. The
>> test participants simply do not know which of the two
>> units being compared they are listening to at any given
>> point.
>
> The fact that the participants know which of the two units being compared
> they are listening to at any given point makes sighted evaluations
> exceedingly questionable.
>
> The true situation that in the past 30+ years of struggling with the problem
> of listening tests, we still really do not have any viable alternatives
> other than sighted or double blind. The sighted tests are obviously
> greviouisly flawed, so we are *stuck* with doing DBTs until we come up with
> something better.
>
>> Beyond that, we seem to be taking the results of
>> those tests on faith.
>
> I think you're speaking for yourself. There seems to be some problem with
> intellectually and emotionally connecting with DBTs.
>
>> It seems to be taken for granted
>> that if there is a difference between the sound of two
>> components, that these differences will be immediately
>> apparent at the switch point.
>
> How many times do I have to deny that by both assertion and example?
>
>
>> I.E., one second you are
>> listening to component A, the next, component B.
>
> So what is the alternative? People have done tests with cross-fades. No
> special joy.
>
> You're not telling the whole story or even just the true story. Even when
> instantaneous switching is used, listeners are offered as many switch points
> as they think they need. There is no need to make a decision immediately
> after a switch point. The listener can audition as many switch points as he
> wishes before reaching a conclusion. This is specifically how I do my own
> DBTs - I switch back and forth looking for the switch points where the
> differences are as clear as possible for me. I base each conclusion (trial)
> on auditioning many comparisons.
>
>
>> Since
>> humans have such a poor aural memory (what we remember
>> about a sound seems to be our impressions of the sound
>> which we take note of as we listen, not the sound
>> itself),
>
> This is very true, but it impacts *any* reasonble listening test. Sighted
> evaluations *solve* the aural memory problem by simply revealing the desired
> answer at every point in the evaluation. That's no solution at all!
>
>> Any difference between the sound of the two
>> components should be the most noticeable at that point.
>
> The fact of the matter is that many audible differences are not most
> noticable at any particular point. Finding these points is part of the skill
> of making listening comparisons.
>
> It is well known that often, by managing the music and how the listener
> times his comparisons, a test can be biased to have either a null outcome
> or the most sensitive outcome possible. This is sometimes apparent even in
> sighted evaluations.
>
> There's no need to judge sighted evaluations by just sound quality, so many
> of the problems that are inherent in reliable listening comparisons are
> masked.
>
>
>> Now, I know that this works fine for speakers - they all
>> sound so different that those differences stick-out like
>> a ham at a Sader, as they say. I suspect that differences
>> between phono-cartridges would be a similar deal, even
>> though I've never heard a DBT of phono-cartridges.
>
> Yes speakers are relatively easy to discern, as Harman's years of public
> reports of loudspeaker listening tests have shown many. We showed over 30
> years ago that phono cartridges are often harder to separate by means of
> just listening, and sometimes they are impossible to separate.
>
>> Perhaps analog tape recorders would exhibit similar
>> results, I don't know.
>
> Over 10 years ago my friend Dave Carlstrom, who happens to be a world-class
> analog tape recorder technican showed that the effects of even just one
> generation on the best analog machines ever built can be detected.
>
>> It's when we get to modern amps, preamps, CD-players and
>> DACs that I start to get uneasy with the process.
>
> All that has been settled for decades by many experimenters. We showed over
> 20 years ago in the Stereo Review CD player and amplfier DBTs that most CD
> players and most SS amplfiiers are impossible to detect. Equipment
> performance has improved just a little since then. I revisited those tests
> about a decade ago and was unable to obtain more positive results by
> upgrading music choice and listener training.
>
>> All of these devices exhibit ruler-flat frequency response and
>> vanishingly low distortion these days, so that eliminates
>> two very important variables in the human auditory
>> perception pantheon.
>
> IOW what we know about their technology supports the outcomes of our
> listening tests.
>
>> The two things that we most readily
>> notice, frequency response aberrations and high amounts
>> of harmonic and IM distortion are removed from the
>> equation. So, what's left? Some say that there are types
>> of distortion that we can't easily measure, but to which
>> the ear is sensitive.
>
> That's a hypothesis whose advocates have already had over 30 years to
> provide scientific evidence to support. Can we all say "no show"?
>
>
>> These include, transient
>> intermodulation or slew-induced distortion (after Otala),
>
> That was quickly identified as a special case of nonlinear distortion over
> 30 years ago. High frequency twin tone IM tests are probably the most
> sensitive way to detect the underlying problem.
>
>> dielectric absorption distortion (after Jung) etc.
>
> Dielectric absorbtion is easy to dismiss on the grounds that it is a very
> subtle effect and also that its consequences have simply never be reliably
> detected in a good listening test. It was the fabrication of a
> publicity-hungry tech writer who rode it into a nice job with a
> semiconductor manufactuer.
>
>> But these are controversial.
>
> Worse than that, they are dismissed for lack of relevancy to the problem of
> listening to reproduced music.
>
>> Many audio experts maintain that
>> they don't exist, and in either case, whether you believe
>> them to be a factor, or not, they are both addressed in
>> most modern amp designs. That leaves noise, which again
>> is vanishingly low in modern analog devices.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> You read reviews of amps that allude to textures in the
>> top octaves, such as this device lends a sandpaper-like
>> quality to the reproduction of strings, while this other
>> device is more liquid, smoother sounding in the same
>> region.
>
> IOW poetry, not proper technical reports.
>
>> But what could account for these differences?
>
> Listener bias, plain and simple.
>
>> noise modulation?
>
> Listener bias, plain and simple.
>
>> Some kind of heretofore undiscovered distortion?
>
> Listener bias, plain and simple.
>
>> This doesn't seem reasonable, and even if
>> these differences do exist, would they be obvious at the
>> switch point in a DBT, or would they go unnoticed, giving
>> rise to the result that there is statistically no
>> difference between the two devices?
>
> Its the old question - how many years do you search for the pot of gold at
> the end of the rainbow, the Lost Ark, or the Holy Grail?
>
>> Would this result in
>> a difference that might only show itself in long-term
>> listening?
>
> Long term listening tests are now well understood. You yourself explained
> how and why they desensitize listeners in your post, above.
>
>> These are questions that I find unsettling in the DBT vs long-term
>> listening debate.
>
> I suspect that its all about your long-cherished beliefs. BTW those are
> beliefs that I held 40 years ago, but they got incinerated by a lot of
> careful listening starting about 35 years ago.
>
>> And this brings up
>> one last question. If the differences are so subtle that
>> DBTs cannot uncover them, are they worth obsessing over?
>
> In general, of course not.
>
>> That's a question that every audio enthusiast is going to
>> have to answer for themselves - once the DBT issue is put
>> to rest, once and for all, of course.
>
> The DBT issue won't be resolved for every audiophile until hopes stops
> springing eternal, and until there's no more money to be made by convincing
> people to suspend disbelief.
>
>

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

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 30, 1:12=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 10:21 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Which merely points to the fact that the body of
>>>>> scientifically valid evidence in the world of
>>>>> audiophilia is painfully thin.
>>>> Your first error is the false assertion that any paper
>>>> that is not peer-reviewed is scientifically invalid.
>>> I never said it was "invalid"
>>
>> You implied it about as clearly as you could.
>
> No Arny not only did I not say it. I made it clear that is not what I
> said. And still you continue to hang your hat on this
> misrepresentation of my position. I am not going to argue with you
> about what i said since it is clear and has been posted twice and I am
> not going to argue with you about what I meant. I am the authority
> over what I meant. You don't get to change that. I did not say nor did
> I imply that it was "invalid."
>
>>
>>> =A0here is what I quoted on the subject with the link.
>>> http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/
>>> "There is a system called peer review that is used by
>>> scientists to decide which research results should be
>>> published in a scientific journal. The peer review
>>> process subjects scientific research papers to
>>> independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific
>>> experts (peers) before they are made public.
>>
>> So let's cut to the chase Scott.
>
>
> I already did cut to the chase Arny and I am done with your
> misrepresentations of it. If you did not understand what was meant by
> the quote on peer review and how it relates to the constant
> inapropriate flag waving by the so called objectivists then that is on
> you. I can not make you understand it. But I am done arguing with you
> about what I meant by it.
>
>
>> Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper
>> that supports your oft-repeated audiophile myths?
>
> 1. the question is too vague and obviosuly prejudicial. This has
> already been pointed out.
> 2. There is no body of evidence on the matter that either supports or
> conflicts with many of the things you are prejucially calling
> audiophile myths including the idea that there is such a thing as
> amplifiers with a distinctive sonic signature. This has also been
> pointed out.
> 3. The fact that there is this lack of such evidence that would be
> considered anything more than junk and/or anecdotal simply supports my
> assertion that the science flag waving is way out of line for anyone
> with an understanding and respect for real science. You can posture
> and try to use misdirection all you want. It won't change that
> reality.
>
>
>>
>> Where is there even one peer-reviewed paper that shows that LP playback
>> equipment technical performance has advanced substantially since say 1985=
> ?
>
> Why do you continue to try to use this misdirection Arny? I have
> already addressed this issue. I never waved the science flag. You did.
> The onus is on you to support your assertions with science or put away
> your science flag. I never waved the science flag on the subject of
> vinyl cutting and playback. I am done addressing this red herring as
> well.
> [Snip tyhe rest of the red herrings]
>
> If you want to assert that your positions are scientifically valid you
> have to show us the science. pointing to a lack of evidence on these
> subjects does not help your case Arny. It actually supports mine, that
> being that science hasn't weighed in on these matters in any
> meaningful way and that we are dealing with differing opinions neither
> of which have much of any real science behind them. Please stop asking
> me to show you the sicence that clearly isn't there since I have not
> misrepresented the scientific validity of my opinions. Only one of us
> is standing on the sicence soap box Arny and that is you. So you are
> the one with the burden of showing us the science upon which you
> allgedly stand.
>

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> bob > wrote:
>
>> Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
>> afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
>> is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
>> illiteracy in order to remain coherent.
>
> Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:
>
> I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularly
> good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
> preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainly a
> bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
> immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
> equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to upset
> him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'm
> hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on and
> his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
> polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
> directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
> behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
> speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures which
> were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turning
> the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
> polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person with
> no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
> and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend knew
> before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poor
> quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.
>
>

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> On Mar 31, 6:58=A0am, Kulin Remailer > wrote:
>> bob > wrote:
>>> Uh, no, the problem is NOT that subjectivist audiophiles who can
>>> afford $20,000 systems cannot afford $20 journal articles. The problem
>>> is that audio subjectivism requires a profound level of scientific
>>> illiteracy in order to remain coherent.
>>
>> Not exactly on topic but not exactly unrelated:
>>
>> I've a very wealthy friend who loves music but doesn't have a particularl=
> y
>> good ear. He bought a very expensive system with tube power amp and tube
>> preamp and huge speakers. I have no idea what he paid but it was certainl=
> y a
>> bundle. He invited me in to listen to a piece I hadn't heard before and I
>> immediately felt awful he spent so much money for such awful sounding
>> equipment. I spotted sonic problems straightaway but I didn't want to ups=
> et
>> him so I asked if he would mind letting me tweak the controls a bit as I'=
> m
>> hearing some things I don't quite like. I found the loudness was set on a=
> nd
>> his tone controls were askew. I found the speaker cables were reversed in
>> polarity from one speaker to the next! He had the speakers themselves
>> directly on a hardwood floor and some large paintings hanging on the wall
>> behind the speakers. I suggested we get some solid stands and get the
>> speakers off the resonant floor and moving them away from the pictures wh=
> ich
>> were being rattled. The difference in clarity was night and day even turn=
> ing
>> the loudness off, setting the tone to flat and fixing the speaker cable
>> polarity. We had another boost when the stands arrived. Here's a person w=
> ith
>> no audio knowledge who trusted whomever sold him some very expensive gear
>> and didn't visit his home to install it properly. As far as my friend kne=
> w
>> before I arrived, all was well. He would have suffered along with the poo=
> r
>> quality sound and assumed it was worth price paid.
>
> What decade did this happen? I can't think of any tube gear that has
> been built in the past forty years that would have a loudness button
> and tone controls. Not sure it is fair to represent the equipment per
> se as "awful sounding." If any equipment, no matter how good it is, is
> poorly set up it will sound bad. You can't blame the tubes on bad
> sound if the speakers were wired out of phase. Nor can you blame the
> dealer for the user's misuse of the equipment unless the dealer had
> been explicitely invited to set it up. Also I'd like to know what the
> equipment was. If the preamp were tubed and had a loudness button and
> tone controls I can't think of anything *new* that matches that
> description. If the dealer (or dealers, you haven't even made it clear
> that all the equipment was purchased at one place) is selling vintage
> equipment it's not really the same thing as selling new stuff which is
> often but not always supported with home visits for set up.
>

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

[Audio Empire]

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

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
<snip>

>
> Some of us would hope that we might help save music lovers a ton of money
> that might otherwise be spent on products with no reliable sonic value
> whatsoever.
>
>> But "real science" has not weighed in on the subject.
>
> Except it has, and only a tiny minority of true believers continue believe
> in the face of considerably contrary evidence.

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

>> At least not the world of peer reviewed scientific studies.
>
> I see Scott that you still aren't answering questions about peer-reviewed
> scientific studies justifying your personal investments in *questionable*
> audio panaceas.
>
>> Who knows what proprietary data exists in the confines of private
>> industry.
>
> We know that in general the purveyers of audio gear whose functional
> principles are myth and legend don't do experiments that result in reliable
> data. They just spin 21st century fairy tales and take their money where
> they can still get it.

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

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





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

[Harry Lavo]

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

>snip<

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

>snip<

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

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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> On Mar 31, 6:58 am, Audio Empire
> > wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. But will DBTs show that no differences exist
>> where their ARE differences. That's what I'm wondering.
>
> DBT will only ferret out audible differences to *that*
> audience at *that* moment during *that* test.

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

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

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

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

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


> So what?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Yet billions are spent on differentiation.

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

> Audio electronics are far more similar than Coke and Pepsi

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> On Mar 31, 9:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Either you will hear it or you will not.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>> One of my
>>> favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
>>> 2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
>>> like glass-in-a-blender.
>>
>> Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally
>> unsupported audiophile myth?
>
> Arnie:
>
> As I suggested to Audio Empire - I bet even you with a
> raging head- cold wearing ear-muffs could pick a
> first-issue unmodified ST-120 out of a crowd 9 times out
> of 10.

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

> Between the power-supply sag,

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

> the driver current sag over a very few watts

Measurements? Circuit analysis?

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

Measurements? Circuit analysis?

> it sounded like glass in a blender.


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

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Either you will hear it or you will not.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>> One of my
>>> favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
>>> 2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
>>> like glass-in-a-blender.
>>
>> Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally
>> unsupported audiophile myth?

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

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

> That consensus of opinion is reliable enough to me.

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

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

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny
> believes that since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed
> support for what he calls "audiophile myths", it means
> that no evidence HAS or CAN be found supporting those
> propositions, while many of the rest of us takes that
> lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
> hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do
> so).


Various people including ourselves have done DBTs relating to several
audiophile myths, and found that the promised audible benefits become
elusive when tested with any amount of rigor.

> You can't find evidence if you don't look for it.

There are people who have done their homework. We've looked for the
evidence, but its exceedingly hard to find. I freely admit that we're the
wrong people to do this, but science isn't so fragile that only advocates
can make something that wants to work, actually workd.


> Now, If Arny wishes to fund a peer-reviewed university
> study on Audiophile Mythology, I'm sure he could find
> someone to step forward and tackle the issue, but I'm
> equally sure that aside from that eventuality, funding
> from the usual sources is going to be hard to come by.

There you go - we see once again where people who advocate and have spent
the big bucks on audiophile myths want other people to pay money to show
them the error of their ways. It's called $200 for a magic HDMI cable but
never ever spend $20 for a JAES preprint.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> This type of person is often the type who participate in
> DBTs as well, rank laymen.

Simply not true. The DBTs I've been involved with involved experienced
audiophiles, some youngsters, some who went back to the days of tubes.

> People like him and college
> students who were weened on MP3s and ear-buds are the
> average "listener".

Here we go again, another set of self-serving audiophile myths. Where are
the peer-reviewed paper that shows that people who listen to MP3 and
personal listening devices necessarily have any deficiencies when it comes
to reliably detecting audible differences?

Fact is that many audible differences are easier to detect with earphones
and/or headphones.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 31, 12:41=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny
> > believes that since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed
> > support for what he calls "audiophile myths", it means
> > that no evidence HAS or CAN be found supporting those
> > propositions, while many of the rest of us takes that
> > lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
> > hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do
> > so).
>
> Various people including ourselves have done DBTs relating to several
> audiophile myths, and found that the promised audible benefits become
> elusive when tested with any amount of rigor.

Anecdotal account of non peer reviewed junk evidence noted.


>
> > You can't find evidence if you don't look for it.
>
> There are people who have done their homework. =A0We've looked for the
> evidence, but its exceedingly hard to find.

You've "looked' for the evidence? Huh? This is not evidence you "look
for." This isn't archeology. This is evidence that is created by doing
tests that stand up to peer review.

> I freely admit that we're the
> wrong people to do this, but science isn't so fragile that only advocates
> can make something that wants to work, actually workd.
>
> > Now, If Arny wishes to fund a peer-reviewed university
> > study on Audiophile Mythology, I'm sure he could find
> > someone to step forward and tackle the issue, but I'm
> > equally sure that aside from that eventuality, funding
> > from the usual sources is going to be hard to come by.
>
> There you go - we see once again where people who advocate and have spent
> the big bucks on audiophile myths want other people to pay money to show
> them the error of their ways.

No we would rather have you demonstrate rather than posture about the
science. that's all. Don't worry Arny. I don't expect you to come up
with the goods. That is the point.

> =A0It's called $200 for a magic HDMI cable but
> never ever spend $20 for a JAES preprint.

And that's called a red herring. I *have* spent $20.00 on AESJ
reprints. Never spent $200.00 on any magic HDMI cable. Of course the
AESJ reprints I bought based on claims you made about their content
didn't support much less address your asssertions at the time. IOW it
was a waste of money. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice......
If you want to cite such papers then you will have to offer quotes in
context. You have a bad track record with me when it comes to
recomendations on AESJ papers.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> This type of person is often the type who participate in
>> DBTs as well, rank laymen.
>
> Simply not true. The DBTs I've been involved with involved experienced
> audiophiles, some youngsters, some who went back to the days of tubes.

So, you feel that you can speak for all DBTs?

>> People like him and college
>> students who were weened on MP3s and ear-buds are the
>> average "listener".
>
> Here we go again, another set of self-serving audiophile myths. Where are
> the peer-reviewed paper that shows that people who listen to MP3 and
> personal listening devices necessarily have any deficiencies when it comes
> to reliably detecting audible differences?

They can listen to low-data rate MP3s
>
> Fact is that many audible differences are easier to detect with earphones
> and/or headphones.

And it seems that a large majority of the younger generations DON'T CARE
about these "differences" AT ALL or they wouldn't be listening to really
low-bit rate MP3s and would insist in ripping their music at higher bit
rates. I have a number of friends with teenaged and college aged kids with
iPod-like devices. They listen to them constantly. When I ask them what
bit-rate they use, the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me to
put the most songs in the available space". I.E. quantity instead of
quality.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:40:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:03 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Either you will hear it or you will not.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>> One of my
>>>> favorite examples is an early Dynaco ST-120 using the
>>>> 2N3055 output transistors. Great measurements, sounded
>>>> like glass-in-a-blender.
>>>
>>> Where is the reliable evidence supporting this generally
>>> unsupported audiophile myth?
>
>> Just about everybody (except, apparently, you) who ever
>> owned one.
>
> People said similar things about the CDP 101, but tests on several samples
> of them also come up empty. There are subtle audible differences, but
> nothing that can honestly be called "glass-in-a-blender".
>
>> That consensus of opinion is reliable enough to me.
>
> I'm looking for reliable technical evidence, not the results of a public
> opinion survey, BTW, where is that public opinion survey? ;-)
>
>> I know what I heard then, and I know what I hear
>> now. Last year I heard an ST-120 A/B'd against a new
>> Audio Research 220 W/channel tube amp in a DBT (just for
>> laughs). We got the laughs all right. The ST-120 sounded
>> DREADFUL, and more than that, it sounded just like I
>> remember is sounding!
>
> Got any bench tests showing that both power amps met origional vendor specs?
> I know for sure that my ST-120 does so.
>
>

Yeah, and I'll bet it still sounds terrible compared to a new amp. Of course,
you seem to have one of the later ones without the 2N3055s and without the
crossover notch, but even those sounded pretty bad - just better than the
early ones.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny
>> believes that since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed
>> support for what he calls "audiophile myths", it means
>> that no evidence HAS or CAN be found supporting those
>> propositions, while many of the rest of us takes that
>> lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
>> hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do
>> so).
>
>
> Various people including ourselves have done DBTs relating to several
> audiophile myths, and found that the promised audible benefits become
> elusive when tested with any amount of rigor.

That's fine Arny. It has nothing to do with my comment above, but that you
have this conviction is just fine.

You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of what you call
"audiophile myths". The insinuation here is that lack of same means that
there aren't any because there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is
that none have been done - that we are aware of. You can guess at the reason,
and your guesses can be used to support your conviction, but the truth is
that you don't know (and neither do I). And that has nothing whatsoever to do
with DBTs that you have performed or anyone else's. The topic was peer-review
of data.

>> You can't find evidence if you don't look for it.
>
> There are people who have done their homework. We've looked for the
> evidence, but its exceedingly hard to find. I freely admit that we're the
> wrong people to do this, but science isn't so fragile that only advocates
> can make something that wants to work, actually workd.

>> Now, If Arny wishes to fund a peer-reviewed university
>> study on Audiophile Mythology, I'm sure he could find
>> someone to step forward and tackle the issue, but I'm
>> equally sure that aside from that eventuality, funding
>> from the usual sources is going to be hard to come by.
>
> There you go - we see once again where people who advocate and have spent
> the big bucks on audiophile myths want other people to pay money to show
> them the error of their ways. It's called $200 for a magic HDMI cable but
> never ever spend $20 for a JAES preprint.

No, you misunderstand me, again. My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with
the studies themselves, or magic HDMI cables or even $20 JAES reprints. You
asked for peer-reviewed studies showing that audiophile myths are true. I'm
merely pointing out that the only way that's going to happen is for someone
to pay to have the studies performed. My invitation to you to step-up to the
plate was done in jest, of course.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire > wrote:

> Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
> since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
> calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
> found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
> takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
> hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
> find evidence if you don't look for it.

I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
ivory tower.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of
> what you call "audiophile myths". The insinuation here is
> that lack of same means that there aren't any because
> there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is that
> none have been done - that we are aware of.

Not at all. My point is that while the peer-reviewed support for a
scientific approach to audio may not satisfy every dedicated true believer
in anti-science, the peer reviewed evidence that supports their viewpoint is
non-existent. They would like to ignore the fact that the original Clark
JAES article introducing ABX was peer-reviewed.

A friend of mine likes to say "People hear what they want to hear and read
what they want to read". It is very clear to me that people who have
invested $10,000's, perhaps $100,000's, and most of their adult lives on
anti-technology like tubes, vinyl, Mpingo discs and Bedini Clarifiers, and
believe that digital can't sound right because of the empty space beteween
the samples, aren't going to read a few peer-reviewed papers and suddenly
have a major change of heart.

The current round of posts blaming problems that afflict *any* listening
test on just DBTs shows that biases run deep, and that some critics simply
do not feel constrained by the actual facts or reason in their blind rush to
preserve the status quo.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> This type of person is often the type who participate in
>>> DBTs as well, rank laymen.
>>
>> Simply not true. The DBTs I've been involved with
>> involved experienced audiophiles, some youngsters, some
>> who went back to the days of tubes.
>
> So, you feel that you can speak for all DBTs?

That's not what I wrote. I feel no need to respond to made-up statements.

>>> People like him and college
>>> students who were weened on MP3s and ear-buds are the
>>> average "listener".
>>
>> Here we go again, another set of self-serving audiophile
>> myths. Where are the peer-reviewed paper that shows that
>> people who listen to MP3 and personal listening devices
>> necessarily have any deficiencies when it comes to
>> reliably detecting audible differences?

> They can listen to low-data rate MP3s

They could. Heck, I listen to low bitrate files frequently because that is
how most spoken word recordings are distributed. It doesn't sound lifelike
or even good, but the goal is communicating information, not tickling the
inner ear.

>> Fact is that many audible differences are easier to
>> detect with earphones and/or headphones.

> And it seems that a large majority of the younger
> generations DON'T CARE about these "differences" AT ALL
> or they wouldn't be listening to really low-bit rate MP3s
> and would insist in ripping their music at higher bit
> rates.

Straw man argument because it has already been generally agreed upon that
the vast majority of music listeners aren't audiophiles and never will be.

OTOH, there is a rapidly emerging market for music encoded in high-bitrate
compressed files, uncompressed and lossless-compressed files, and even music
files with 24 bit data words and sample rates up to 192KHz.

There has been a major explosion in sales of high priced and in some cases
high quality earphones and headphones. Traditional vendors like Sennheiser
and Etymotics are bringing out new extremely expensive high performance
headphones and earphones. Non-traditional vendors are doing similar things
in even greater volumes. If not for the young, mobile music listener, then
who?

> I have a number of friends with teenaged and
> college aged kids with iPod-like devices. They listen to
> them constantly. When I ask them what bit-rate they use,
> the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me to
> put the most songs in the available space". I.E.
> quantity instead of quality.

These are choices that they get to make. This is also just the mass market,
not the already large and rapidly emerging market for high quality mobile
listening experiences. Remember that most of our parents were happy
listening to AM radios when they were young, and as a rule they had no
viable alternatives until the 1950s.

On balance the low and rapidly falling prices for flash memory make crushing
music in order to store huge amounts of it in portable devices more
nonsensical than ever.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:29:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of
>> what you call "audiophile myths". The insinuation here is
>> that lack of same means that there aren't any because
>> there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is that
>> none have been done - that we are aware of.
>
> Not at all. My point is that while the peer-reviewed support for a
> scientific approach to audio may not satisfy every dedicated true believer
> in anti-science, the peer reviewed evidence that supports their viewpoint is
> non-existent.

Yes, I know that's your point. But my point is this evidence is not
non-existent because it cannot exist, it's non-existent probably because the
research has not been done, or at least hasn't been done in a manner that
would lead to the results being peer-reviewed. This is an entirely different
thing from what you want the answer to be.


>They would like to ignore the fact that the original Clark
> JAES article introducing ABX was peer-reviewed.

I'm not sure that anyone would like to do that. Just because a paper on the
methodology has been peer-reviewed, doesn't mean that the results have.

> A friend of mine likes to say "People hear what they want to hear and read
> what they want to read".

Very true. I'm not advocating that test methodologies which eliminate
expectational and sighted bias aren't necessary, I'm just wondering if the
tests we now employ satisfy the other side of the equation. IOW, we've got
the bias-neutral part right, but are the results of those DBTs either
accurate or reliable? One side of the equation doesn't necessarily guarantee
the efficacy of the other. In fact, they have little to do with each other.


> It is very clear to me that people who have
> invested $10,000's, perhaps $100,000's, and most of their adult lives on
> anti-technology like tubes, vinyl, Mpingo discs and Bedini Clarifiers, and
> believe that digital can't sound right because of the empty space beteween
> the samples, aren't going to read a few peer-reviewed papers and suddenly
> have a major change of heart.

Nor are they going to believe a bunch of DBTs that tell them that they are
wrong.

OTOH, I think that you are wrong (and incredibly biased), however, when you
group tubes and vinyl in with Mpingo discs, Bedini Clarifiers and other REAL
anti-technology. I can show you any number of tube amps, for example, that
you couldn't tell were tubed on the basis of their sound or for that matter
differentiate between the tubed amp and a modern SS amp in any DBT or ABX
test that you'd like to name. I will give you that since modern, quality tube
amps from the likes of Audio Research and VTL, etc., sound so much like a
modern SS amp, it's difficult to justify putting-up with the downside of
tubes just to have one. There was a time when tube amps sounded much better
than transistor amps, but those days are done and gone. There might be some
romance associated with a set of KT-88s glowing softly in the dark while
great music fills the room, but at that juncture we have reduced tubes to an
electronic fireplace, and I think I'd rather have a nice, reliable SS amp and
a REAL fireplace, thank you. The darkened room, filled with great music, of
course, is always welcome from any source, including vinyl.

> The current round of posts blaming problems that afflict *any* listening
> test on just DBTs shows that biases run deep, and that some critics simply
> do not feel constrained by the actual facts or reason in their blind rush to
> preserve the status quo.

Your opinions are not necessarily facts, and I've seen no DIRECT proof that
these null results from DBTs actually PROVE anything. Sure they satisfy those
who believe that DBT is the final arbiter of component differences, but that,
in itself, is a form of circular reasoning. A self-fulfilling prophecy as it
were.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:30:11 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> This type of person is often the type who participate in
>>>> DBTs as well, rank laymen.
>>>
>>> Simply not true. The DBTs I've been involved with
>>> involved experienced audiophiles, some youngsters, some
>>> who went back to the days of tubes.
>>
>> So, you feel that you can speak for all DBTs?
>
> That's not what I wrote. I feel no need to respond to made-up statements.
>
>>>> People like him and college
>>>> students who were weened on MP3s and ear-buds are the
>>>> average "listener".
>>>
>>> Here we go again, another set of self-serving audiophile
>>> myths. Where are the peer-reviewed paper that shows that
>>> people who listen to MP3 and personal listening devices
>>> necessarily have any deficiencies when it comes to
>>> reliably detecting audible differences?
>
>> They can listen to low-data rate MP3s
>
> They could. Heck, I listen to low bitrate files frequently because that is
> how most spoken word recordings are distributed. It doesn't sound lifelike
> or even good, but the goal is communicating information, not tickling the
> inner ear.

But that's a totally irrelevant side issue on your part, which, I believe, is
designed to obfuscate the debate.

>>> Fact is that many audible differences are easier to
>>> detect with earphones and/or headphones.
>
>> And it seems that a large majority of the younger
>> generations DON'T CARE about these "differences" AT ALL
>> or they wouldn't be listening to really low-bit rate MP3s
>> and would insist in ripping their music at higher bit
>> rates.
>
> Straw man argument because it has already been generally agreed upon that
> the vast majority of music listeners aren't audiophiles and never will be.

Again withe the deliberate obfuscation. We are TALKING about the fact that
the average listener is NOT an audiophile. That's the whole point of my
bringing up the fact that most young people don't care about sound. If they
did, they wouldn't be satisfied listening to low bit-rate MP3s. When this
type of "listener" is pressed into service to participate in a listening DBT,
I don't wonder that they return a null result. They likely don't even
understand what they are supposed to be listening FOR, and probably wouldn't
recognize these differences even if they existed. THAT'S THE POINT.

> OTOH, there is a rapidly emerging market for music encoded in high-bitrate
> compressed files, uncompressed and lossless-compressed files, and even music
> files with 24 bit data words and sample rates up to 192KHz.

But again, that;'s NOT the discussion.

> There has been a major explosion in sales of high priced and in some cases
> high quality earphones and headphones. Traditional vendors like Sennheiser
> and Etymotics are bringing out new extremely expensive high performance
> headphones and earphones. Non-traditional vendors are doing similar things
> in even greater volumes. If not for the young, mobile music listener, then
> who?

You are assuming that these expensive headphones are bought by people who
encode their ripped music at the lowest possible data rate (thereby expanding
their iPod-like device's capacity). And that is simply not in evidence. Every
audiophile I know has an iPod or similar device. They DO NOT use MP3 they use
FLAC or ALC and trade ultimate storage capacity for quality. They also tend
to listen with expensive headphones and many have outboard headphone
amplifiers which accompany their iPod devices

>> I have a number of friends with teenaged and
>> college aged kids with iPod-like devices. They listen to
>> them constantly. When I ask them what bit-rate they use,
>> the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me to
>> put the most songs in the available space". I.E.
>> quantity instead of quality.
>
> These are choices that they get to make. This is also just the mass market,
> not the already large and rapidly emerging market for high quality mobile
> listening experiences. Remember that most of our parents were happy
> listening to AM radios when they were young, and as a rule they had no
> viable alternatives until the 1950s.

This just reinforces my point about the quality of listeners that take part
in these university level DBT studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you
are so fond of.

> On balance the low and rapidly falling prices for flash memory make crushing
> music in order to store huge amounts of it in portable devices more
> nonsensical than ever.

While that might be true for those of us interested in sound quality. To the
average teen, larger memory means MORE low-quality music files on their
players. I know kids with libraries that include thousands of "songs", far
more than they will ever listen to, but to hear them tell it, that's not the
point. The point is to have everything. They trade songs, buy songs, rip
songs and steal songs from the internet. The game is MORE, not BETTER.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 4:59=A0am, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Audio Empire > wrote:
> > Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
> > since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
> > calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
> > found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
> > takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
> > hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
> > find evidence if you don't look for it.
>
> I think you're being grossly unfair. =A0It's a matter of record that
> Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
> satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. =A0To say that
> his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
> or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. =A0Surely it's
> better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
> ivory tower.
>
It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
wrong! Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than
anecdotal evidence in the eyes of real science. So it is not unfair
much less grossly unfair to make this charcterization when Arny pulls
out the science flag. It's only better to have more people doing
"science" so long as they are doing it up to the standards set by the
scientific community. More junk wrongly presented as science is not a
good thing in any way.

If one considers the standards set by the scientific community as some
sort of ivory tower we have nothing more to discuss on the merits fo
evidence.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 7:29=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of
> > what you call "audiophile myths". The insinuation here is
> > that lack of same means that there aren't any because
> > there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is that
> > none have been done - that we are aware of.
>
> Not at all. My point is that =A0while the peer-reviewed support for a
> scientific approach to audio may not satisfy every dedicated true believe=
r
> in anti-science, the peer reviewed evidence that supports their viewpoint=
is
> non-existent. They would like to ignore the fact that the original Clark
> JAES article introducing ABX was peer-reviewed.

Your points are built on prejudicial axioms about other peoples'
beliefs. We already are aware of those prejudices. You give them away
every time you use loaded language such as "true believers in anti-
science" to describe people who merely have a different opinion about
the meaning of your anecdotal evidence. The real anti science here is
the idea that your anecdotal evidence is actually scientifically valid
and the inference that the lack of evidence in support of ideas that
you prejudicially brand as "audio myths" are invalid due to a lack of
evidencial support even though you know there is no evidence at all
either in support or in conflict with those ideas. That is very anti-
scientific

>
> A friend of mine likes to say "People hear what they want to hear and rea=
d
> what they want to read".

Maybe he was including you when he was saying this to you. Or did you
assume you were the exception?


>=A0It is very clear to me that people who have
> invested $10,000's, perhaps $100,000's, =A0and most of their adult lives =
on
> anti-technology like tubes, vinyl, Mpingo discs and Bedini Clarifiers, an=
d
> believe that digital can't sound right because of the empty space betewee=
n
> the samples, aren't going to read a few peer-reviewed papers and suddenly
> have a major change of heart.

This is just rhetoric built on prejudices. Since when are tubed
electronics "anti"technology?" And associating such things as tubed
electronics which clearly actually work! And have been demonstrated to
have objectively measurable characteristics which give them a sonic
signature that many find preferable with things like Mpingo discs is
simply a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Then to make
assumptions about what others who you have prejudicially
mischaracterized would and would not read is really ridiculous.
Especially given the fact that I have actually bought and read such
papers based on your misrepresentations of their content! You are
burning straw men left and right here.

>
> The current round of posts blaming problems that afflict *any* listening
> test on just DBTs shows that biases run deep, and that some critics simpl=
y
> do not feel constrained by the actual facts or reason in their blind rush=
to
> preserve the status quo.

And yet no one has actually done *that.* Another straw man goes up in
flames. When you have the goods. When you wave the sicence flag and
you actually have the science to do so, there is no need to pollute
the web with the ashes of so much burnt straw.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
> wrote:
>> Audio Empire > wrote:
>> > Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
>> > since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
>> > calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
>> > found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
>> > takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
>> > hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
>> > find evidence if you don't look for it.
>>
>> I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
>> Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
>> satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
>> his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
>> or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
>> better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
>> ivory tower.
>>
> It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
> opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
> notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
> mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
> digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
> is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
> wrong!

Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
doing experiments.

> Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
> evidence in the eyes of real science.

Think about how negative this sounds. You're implying that there is
never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
careful experiment. They might as well guess, because their results
won't be valid anyway. Care and diligence is a waste of time.

> So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
> charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
> better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
> it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 12:10=A0pm, Andrew Haley >
wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
> > wrote:
> >> Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> > Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
> >> > since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
> >> > calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
> >> > found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
> >> > takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
> >> > hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
> >> > find evidence if you don't look for it.
>
> >> I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
> >> Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
> >> satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
> >> his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
> >> or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
> >> better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
> >> ivory tower.
>
> > It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
> > opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
> > notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
> > mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
> > digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
> > is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
> > wrong!
>
> Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
> doing experiments.

Of course not. I am opposed to misrepresentations of their merit in
the eyes of real science. Whether that misrepresentation comes from
"creationist scientists" Bigfoot hunters, UFOlogists or rabid audio
objectivists. And yes you can throw in the radical audio subjectivists
like the Peter Beltians who advocate things like freezing pictures of
your dog and many other things that could not possibly affect the
performance of an audio system.


>
> > Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
> > evidence in the eyes of real science.
>
> Think about how negative this sounds. =A0You're implying that there is
> never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
> careful experiment.

Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments it's about
misrepresenting real science. Weekend scientists don't get a special
pass that allows them to bypass the rigors of accepted scientific
methodologies. Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it
is something the actual scientific community considers to be real
science.

>=A0They might as well guess, because their results
> won't be valid anyway. =A0Care and diligence is a waste of time.

Look validity means different things in different contexts. They are
as valid as one wants to think they are on a personal level. Just as
much as your opinions on your favorite flavor of ice cream is justa s
valid as you want it to be on a personal level. But scientific
validity is a different thing and demands very different standards.
It's the bait and switch that I take issue with.


>
> > So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
> > charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
> > better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
> > it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
>
> There, I agree totally. =A0What matters is how well the experiment is
> done. =A0But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
> surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.
>

I agree with your agreement. ;-)

I am going to go out on a limb and guess you would perefer that people
don't peddle junk science and anecdotes as real science as well.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:41:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> This type of person is often the type who participate in
>>>> DBTs as well, rank laymen.
>>>
>>> Simply not true. The DBTs I've been involved with
>>> involved experienced audiophiles, some youngsters, some
>>> who went back to the days of tubes.
>>
>> So, you feel that you can speak for all DBTs?
> That's not what I wrote. I feel no need to respond to made-up statements.
>

He's simply saying that the groups you've been involved in are not (or may
not be) representative of the group tests that have been done (which often
use university students, from what I've seen).

>>>> People like him and college
>>>> students who were weened on MP3s and ear-buds are the
>>>> average "listener".
>>>
>>> Here we go again, another set of self-serving audiophile
>>> myths. Where are the peer-reviewed paper that shows that
>>> people who listen to MP3 and personal listening devices
>>> necessarily have any deficiencies when it comes to
>>> reliably detecting audible differences?
>
>> They can listen to low-data rate MP3s
>
> They could. Heck, I listen to low bitrate files frequently because that is
> how most spoken word recordings are distributed. It doesn't sound lifelike
> or even good, but the goal is communicating information, not tickling the
> inner ear.

I'm not sure ANYBODY listens to music for the "information content" rather
than enjoyment. This would seem to negate your point.



>>> Fact is that many audible differences are easier to
>>> detect with earphones and/or headphones.
>
>> And it seems that a large majority of the younger
>> generations DON'T CARE about these "differences" AT ALL
>> or they wouldn't be listening to really low-bit rate MP3s
>> and would insist in ripping their music at higher bit
>> rates.
>
> Straw man argument because it has already been generally agreed upon that
> the vast majority of music listeners aren't audiophiles and never will be.
>
> OTOH, there is a rapidly emerging market for music encoded in high-bitrate
> compressed files, uncompressed and lossless-compressed files, and even
> music
> files with 24 bit data words and sample rates up to 192KHz.
>
> There has been a major explosion in sales of high priced and in some cases
> high quality earphones and headphones. Traditional vendors like Sennheiser
> and Etymotics are bringing out new extremely expensive high performance
> headphones and earphones. Non-traditional vendors are doing similar things
> in even greater volumes. If not for the young, mobile music listener, then
> who?

The well-heeled audiophile who wants to be "with it"?


>> I have a number of friends with teenaged and
>> college aged kids with iPod-like devices. They listen to
>> them constantly. When I ask them what bit-rate they use,
>> the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me to
>> put the most songs in the available space". I.E.
>> quantity instead of quality.
>
> These are choices that they get to make. This is also just the mass
> market,
> not the already large and rapidly emerging market for high quality mobile
> listening experiences. Remember that most of our parents were happy
> listening to AM radios when they were young, and as a rule they had no
> viable alternatives until the 1950s.
>
> On balance the low and rapidly falling prices for flash memory make
> crushing
> music in order to store huge amounts of it in portable devices more
> nonsensical than ever.

And your point is....?

[Harry Lavo]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Scott > wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
>> wrote:

>snip<

>> So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
>> charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
>> better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
>> it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
>
> There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
> done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
> surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
(stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc.)

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and even
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluative
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 4:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Scott > wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
> >> wrote:
> >snip<
> >> So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
> >> charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
> >> better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
> >> it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
>
> > There, I agree totally. =A0What matters is how well the experiment is
> > done. =A0But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
> > surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.
>
> Not necesarily. =A0If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
> validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
> (stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc=
..)

If the controls "aren't there" then you have "none" by definition.


>
> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

>
> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluativ=
e
> process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
> results. =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeav=
or is
> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
> variable under test.

How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not? Neither
methodology is particularly more or less like the "normal evaluative
process" if there is such a singular thing. I can't go there with you
Harry. If done well ABX should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test
may miss an audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT advocates that
when used to test claims of audibility those making the claims should
already know what specifically to listen for. ABX doen right does not
make audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the issue
not ABX per se.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
> evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
> aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
> have proven better at.

You see to be very confused, Harry.

Of course the ABX test has been shown to be valid in evaluating differences
in sound quality related to the reproduction of music and voice.

The OOhashi test has never been confirmed and was only published in a
journal that makes the AESJ look like a major bastion of Science.

There's no controversy between ABC/hr and ABX. They are two different tests
with two different purposes. Many people use both, depending on the question
at hand.

> Yet ABX is the test that Arny developed a computerized version of, and has
> relied on.

What you can't say truthfully Harry is all that matters, which is whether I
rely on ABX to the exclusion of all others, which everybody knows is false.
It's all about the right tool for the job. I also use and recognize other
double blind testing methodologies, as they fit the work at hand.

> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
> normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
> that it will not produce valid results.

Sighted evaluations would be the world's best example of that. There is
only speculation and no peer-reviewed scientific opinion that ABX interferes
with the normal evaluatative process, any more so than any of the
alternatives. Of course doing an evaluations is not identically the same as
just listening to music for pleasure. But, nobody has figured out how to
reduce that difference to zero.

> One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
> context of the variable under test.

Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX. That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> We are TALKING
> about the fact that the average listener is NOT an
> audiophile. That's the whole point of my bringing up the
> fact that most young people don't care about sound. If
> they did, they wouldn't be satisfied listening to low
> bit-rate MP3s.

I agree.

> When this type of "listener" is pressed
> into service to participate in a listening DBT, I don't
> wonder that they return a null result.

Who is silly enough to do that?

> They likely don't
> even understand what they are supposed to be listening
> FOR, and probably wouldn't recognize these differences
> even if they existed.


Who actually wastes their time doing that?

> THAT'S THE POINT.

My point is that we never used people like that in our ABX tests, and AFAIK
neither does anybody else if sensitive results are the goal.

Looks like a straw man argument to me!


>
>> There has been a major explosion in sales of high priced
>> and in some cases high quality earphones and headphones.
>> Traditional vendors like Sennheiser and Etymotics are
>> bringing out new extremely expensive high performance
>> headphones and earphones. Non-traditional vendors are
>> doing similar things in even greater volumes. If not for
>> the young, mobile music listener, then who?

> You are assuming that these expensive headphones are
> bought by people who encode their ripped music at the
> lowest possible data rate (thereby expanding their
> iPod-like device's capacity).

Not at all. I'm saying that people who go to all that trouble and expense
are often far more demanding of their program material.

The fact of the matter is that even a minimal 2 GB Sansa Clip ( a device
with 24 GB max capacity today) can hold enough lossless FLAC files in 2G to
be a very enjoyable listening tool.

> And that is simply not in
> evidence. Every audiophile I know has an iPod or similar
> device. They DO NOT use MP3 they use FLAC or ALC and
> trade ultimate storage capacity for quality. They also
> tend to listen with expensive headphones and many have
> outboard headphone amplifiers which accompany their iPod
> devices

Then we agree.

>>> I have a number of friends with teenaged and
>>> college aged kids with iPod-like devices. They listen to
>>> them constantly. When I ask them what bit-rate they use,
>>> the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me
>>> to put the most songs in the available space". I.E.
>>> quantity instead of quality.

>> These are choices that they get to make. This is also
>> just the mass market, not the already large and rapidly
>> emerging market for high quality mobile listening
>> experiences. Remember that most of our parents were
>> happy listening to AM radios when they were young, and
>> as a rule they had no viable alternatives until the
>> 1950s.

> This just reinforces my point about the quality of
> listeners that take part in these university level DBT
> studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you are so
> fond of.

The Meyer Moran tests were done "With the help of about 60 members of the
Boston Audio Society and many other interested parties.."

(quote from page one of the Meyer JAES Peer-reviewed paper.

Your claim is totally flasified.


BTW the rest of the sentence I quoted said:

"a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period of
about a year"

Thus we have recent confirmation of the validity of ABX testing in a
peer-reviewed paper.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> We are TALKING
>> about the fact that the average listener is NOT an
>> audiophile. That's the whole point of my bringing up the
>> fact that most young people don't care about sound. If
>> they did, they wouldn't be satisfied listening to low
>> bit-rate MP3s.
>
> I agree.
>
>> When this type of "listener" is pressed
>> into service to participate in a listening DBT, I don't
>> wonder that they return a null result.
>
> Who is silly enough to do that?
>
>> They likely don't
>> even understand what they are supposed to be listening
>> FOR, and probably wouldn't recognize these differences
>> even if they existed.
>
>
> Who actually wastes their time doing that?
>
>> THAT'S THE POINT.
>
> My point is that we never used people like that in our ABX tests, and AFAIK
> neither does anybody else if sensitive results are the goal.
>
> Looks like a straw man argument to me!

Tell that to Meyer/Moran. Many of their participants were just university
students (although most were Boston Audio Society members, and that's to the
good). The paper made no differentiation between experienced listeners and
non-experienced except to say that in their tests, it didn't seem to matter.

>
>
>>
>>> There has been a major explosion in sales of high priced
>>> and in some cases high quality earphones and headphones.
>>> Traditional vendors like Sennheiser and Etymotics are
>>> bringing out new extremely expensive high performance
>>> headphones and earphones. Non-traditional vendors are
>>> doing similar things in even greater volumes. If not for
>>> the young, mobile music listener, then who?
>
>> You are assuming that these expensive headphones are
>> bought by people who encode their ripped music at the
>> lowest possible data rate (thereby expanding their
>> iPod-like device's capacity).
>
> Not at all. I'm saying that people who go to all that trouble and expense
> are often far more demanding of their program material.
>
> The fact of the matter is that even a minimal 2 GB Sansa Clip ( a device
> with 24 GB max capacity today) can hold enough lossless FLAC files in 2G to
> be a very enjoyable listening tool.
>
>> And that is simply not in
>> evidence. Every audiophile I know has an iPod or similar
>> device. They DO NOT use MP3 they use FLAC or ALC and
>> trade ultimate storage capacity for quality. They also
>> tend to listen with expensive headphones and many have
>> outboard headphone amplifiers which accompany their iPod
>> devices
>
> Then we agree.

Only if you concede that the average iPod toting teen wouldn't know decent
sound if it came up and bit them in the arse!

>>>> I have a number of friends with teenaged and
>>>> college aged kids with iPod-like devices. They listen to
>>>> them constantly. When I ask them what bit-rate they use,
>>>> the answer is always the same: "The one that allows me
>>>> to put the most songs in the available space". I.E.
>>>> quantity instead of quality.
>
>>> These are choices that they get to make. This is also
>>> just the mass market, not the already large and rapidly
>>> emerging market for high quality mobile listening
>>> experiences. Remember that most of our parents were
>>> happy listening to AM radios when they were young, and
>>> as a rule they had no viable alternatives until the
>>> 1950s.
>
>> This just reinforces my point about the quality of
>> listeners that take part in these university level DBT
>> studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you are so
>> fond of.
>
> The Meyer Moran tests were done "With the help of about 60 members of the
> Boston Audio Society and many other interested parties.."
>
> (quote from page one of the Meyer JAES Peer-reviewed paper.
>
> Your claim is totally flasified.

The paper also says that they used over one hundred participants, "of widely
varying ages, activities, and levels of musical and audio experience.'
>
> BTW the rest of the sentence I quoted said:
>
> "a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were held over a period of
> about a year"

Yep.

>
> Thus we have recent confirmation of the validity of ABX testing in a
> peer-reviewed paper.

I didn't see the peer-review info noted in that paper.

[bob]

On Apr 1, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> Your opinions are not necessarily facts, and I've seen no DIRECT proof th=
at
> these null results from DBTs actually PROVE anything. Sure they satisfy t=
hose
> who believe that DBT is the final arbiter of component differences, but t=
hat,
> in itself, is a form of circular reasoning. A self-fulfilling prophecy as=
it
> were.

If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
psychoacoustics journals?

Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
what constitutes proof than you do? And whose standard should we
trust, in that case?

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments
> it's about misrepresenting real science.

Who does that?

> Weekend
> scientists don't get a special pass that allows them to
> bypass the rigors of accepted scientific methodologies.

Who does that?

> Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it is
> something the actual scientific community considers to be
> real science.

Remember that ABX and its procedures were fully described in a
peer-reviewed paper that was printed in the JAES.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not?

Good point Scott. But lets step back even further and see the big picture.

How does ABX interfere in a way that any test that demands the listener
express an opinon does not?

> Neither methodology is particularly more or less like the
> "normal evaluative process" if there is such a singular
> thing.

Additional good points. Is an ABX test less intrusive than listening in a
stereo salon with a commissioned salesman hovering?

> I can't go there with you Harry. If done well ABX
> should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test may miss an
> audible difference that is present and not specifically
> being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT
> advocates that when used to test claims of audibility
> those making the claims should already know what
> specifically to listen for. ABX donr right does not make
> audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the
> issue not ABX per se.

What makes this all a giant joke is the fact that so many people take
sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched listening evaluations as their
definitive standard for evaluating audio gear. If that isn't invalid, then
is anything invalid?

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:40:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Scott > wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
>>> wrote:
>
>> snip<
>
>>> So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
>>> charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
>>> better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
>>> it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
>>
>> There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
>> done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
>> surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.
>
> Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
> validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
> (stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology, etc.)
>
> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and even
> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.
>
> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluative
> process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
> results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
> variable under test.
>

Well put. These are some of the things that bother me about the body of
conclusions that many of these tests produce. As I have indicated before, I
have participated in many DBT tests where we have worked hard to set up
correctly, with level matching to less than a quarter of a dB both electrical
and acoustical, set switch times, long samples, the switch operator in
another room, all indications of a switch taking place masked (input lights,
etc.), the AB box (where used) in an insulation-filled box so we can't hear
the relays, etc. and we have returned statistically positive results for amps
and DACs. . I have also been involved in DBTs where null results have been
returned.

In those tests where a positive result occurred, I found the differences to
be so trivial that only a very anal retentive audiophile could possibly not
be happy with any of the units under test! While they all sounded a little
different in some respect, they all sounded good. The only time we got a
gross difference was when, for fun, we pulled out our host's old Dynaco
ST-120 and ran it against a new, and very expensive Audio Research Hybrid
HD220 amp. The results made us all laugh. The ST-120 sounded dreadful while
the AR was very neutral sounding.

[bob]

On Apr 2, 9:28=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
> > to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
> > context of the variable under test.
>
> Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX. T=
hat
> you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the techni=
cal
> gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
> post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 12:25=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your opinions are not necessarily facts, and I've seen no DIRECT proof =
that
> > these null results from DBTs actually PROVE anything. Sure they satisfy=
those
> > who believe that DBT is the final arbiter of component differences, but=
that,
> > in itself, is a form of circular reasoning. A self-fulfilling prophecy =
as it
> > were.
>
> If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
> psychoacoustics journals?
>
> Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
> what constitutes proof than you do? And whose standard should we
> trust, in that case?
>

You are right. We should trust the scientists and the peer review
process for giving us the highest standards for proof. One should also
note that one paper. one reported set of tests etc does not
constitute a meaningful *body* of evidence.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 1, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>
>> Your opinions are not necessarily facts, and I've seen no DIRECT proof th=
> at
>> these null results from DBTs actually PROVE anything. Sure they satisfy t=
> hose
>> who believe that DBT is the final arbiter of component differences, but t=
> hat,
>> in itself, is a form of circular reasoning. A self-fulfilling prophecy as=
> it
>> were.
>
> If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
> psychoacoustics journals?

Are they? Where, then, are these peer reviews? And do psychoacoustic journals
test audio gear?

> Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
> what constitutes proof than you do?

I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for proof
yet. Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts about its
efficacy for testing audio equipment.


> And whose standard should we
> trust, in that case?

Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

[Esmond Pitt[_2_]]

On 26/03/2011 3:24 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
> The hardest part was replacing the
> multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no longer
> available)

I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a
vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in
reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market.

[bob]

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):

> > If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
> > psychoacoustics journals?
>
> Are they? Where, then, are these peer reviews?

In peer-reviewed journals. Duh. You can find others, if you care to
look. But even a single accepted article suffices to prove that they
are accepted.

What you won't find in any psychoacoustics journal is any comparative
listening test that ISN'T double-blind.

>And do psychoacoustic journals
> test audio gear?

Of course not. As I said earlier in this thread, scientific journals
don't waste space on old news. And the fact that several categories of
audio gear are audibly transparent is very old news in the
psychoacoustics field.

> > Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
> > what constitutes proof than you do?
>
> I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for pro=
of
> yet. =A0

Oh yeah, that follows logically. ;-)

> Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts about its
> efficacy for testing audio equipment.

What you call niggling doubts, I call pseudoscientific
rationalization. It's like saying, "I agree that naturally occurring
carbon dioxide traps heat in the lower atmosphere, but I have a few
niggling doubts about whether man-made carbon dioxide does so."

You're grasping at straws.

> > And whose standard should we
> > trust, in that case?
>
> Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

This from a man who can't present even one iota of plausibly
scientific evidence in favor of his position.

bob

[bob]

On Apr 2, 4:38=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
>
> You are right. We should trust the scientists and the peer review
> process for giving us the highest standards for proof. One should also
> note that one =A0paper. one reported set of tests etc does not
> constitute a meaningful *body* of evidence.

Nor did anyone claim it was. That article was cited as an example of
the evidence, not its totality. In addition, its publication
demonstrates, contrary to assertions made here, that ABX and similar
tests ARE recognized as valid by the people who actually understand
the underlying science.

And, to beat a dead horse, where is there even one single published
listening test that supports the other side of this "debate"? Nowhere,
mon frere.

bob

[bob]

On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluativ=
e
> process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
> results. =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeav=
or is
> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
> variable under test.

Again, Harry takes it upon himself to invent science. There is no
evidence that ABX tests are less sensitive to anything than other
double-blind tests. Quite the contrary--it's pretty easy to design a
test that's less sensitive than an ABX test.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

>"Scott" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 4:40 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in message
>
>> ...
>
>> > Scott > wrote:
>> >> On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley >
>> >> wrote:

> >snip<

>> >> So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
>> >> charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
>> >> better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
>> >> it up to the standards set by the scientific community.
>>
>> > There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
>> > done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
>> > surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.
>>
>>> Not necesarily. If the controls that aren't there are crucial to the
>>> validity of the test, or the design of the test itself is not valid
>>> (stimulus, measurements, intervals, training, intervening technology,
>>> etc.)

>If the controls "aren't there" then you have "none" by definition.

No, then the controls are inadequate. There is a difference. Sometimes
"inadequate" controls can slip by the designer, as can validity-destroying
intervening variables. That's why careful peer review is important.

>
>> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
>> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and
>> even
>> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
>> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

>
>> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal
>> evaluative
>> process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
>> results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor
>> is
>> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
>> variable under test.

>How does ABX interfere in a way that ABC/hr does not? Neither
>methodology is particularly more or less like the "normal evaluative
>process" if there is such a singular thing. I can't go there with you
>Harry. If done well ABX should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test
>may miss an audible difference that is present and not specifically
>being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT advocates that
>when used to test claims of audibility those making the claims should
>already know what specifically to listen for. ABX doen right does not
>make audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the issue
>not ABX per se.

I don't like either, although ABC/hr takes a timid step in the direction of
musical evaluation.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 1:35=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Not at all. Again it's not about people doing experiments
> > it's about misrepresenting real science.
>
> Who does that?

Since you asked, I think you do.

>
> > Weekend
> > scientists don't get a special pass that allows them to
> > bypass the rigors of accepted scientific methodologies.
>
> Who does that?

*does* what? I didn't say anybody *does* anything in the above quote.
>

> > Do all the experiments you want just don't pretend it is
> > something the actual scientific community considers to be
> > real science.
>
> =A0Remember that ABX and its procedures were fully described in a
> peer-reviewed paper that was printed in the JAES.

Yep. I have it. Remember when I asked for any peer reviewed papers
with results of such tests that show amplifiers sound the same? The
AESJ clearly shows that they would publish such papers should thet
stand up to scrutiny by having published the paper you are referencing
above which cites the need for such tests in audio.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 1:38=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > How does ABX interfere in a way =A0that ABC/hr does not?
>
> Good point Scott. But lets step back even further and see the big picture=
..
>
> How does ABX interfere in a way that any test that demands the listener
> express an opinon does not?

I don't think it does. Nor does ABC/hr


>
> > Neither methodology is particularly more or less like the
> > "normal evaluative process" if there is such a singular
> > thing.
>
> Additional good points. Is an ABX test less intrusive than listening in a
> stereo salon with a commissioned salesman hovering?

I think the intrusiveness of ABX simply is a function of the physical
imposition of such a test. If we are talking an ABX box and amps this
is trivial. If we are talking about other things it can be cumbersome.
Try doing an ABX test of power conditioners for example. Not a simple
test to design or execute.

>
> > I can't go there with you Harry. If done well ABX
> > should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test may miss an
> > audible difference that is present and not specifically
> > being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT
> > advocates that when used to test claims of audibility
> > those making the claims should already know what
> > specifically to listen for. ABX donr right does not make
> > audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the
> > issue not ABX per se.
>
> What makes this all a giant joke is the fact that so many people take
> sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched listening evaluations as the=
ir
> definitive standard for evaluating audio gear. =A0If that isn't invalid, =
then
> is anything invalid?

Personal evaluation only requires personal validation. The last set of
blind comparisons I did (not ABX since theyr were preference
comparisons and there was NO question of sameness) was between several
*performances* of Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. It was an arduous
task to say the least. You really can't time sync, nor do you want to.
the pieces have to be heard in sections and as a whole. Level matching
is impossible so we level "optimized" for each version. As different
and as recognizable as one would expect the different interpretations
to be the blind comparisons were really an eye, or ear opener. A lot
of the presumptions about the artists' technical and artistic talents
were exposed as questionable in these blind comparisons. But it was a
lot of work. Luckily it was also a lot of fun. It was quite a learning
experience in regards to the concerto itself and a learning experience
in my personal tastes. One of the lessons was that despite the obvious
and, in many cases, recognizable differences between these
performances the bias controls made a significant impact on the
results and preferences formed.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 2, 6:49=A0pm, bob > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
> > (in article >):
> > > If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
> > > psychoacoustics journals?
>
> > Are they? Where, then, are these peer reviews?
>
> In peer-reviewed journals. Duh. You can find others, if you care to
> look. But even a single accepted article suffices to prove that they
> are accepted.
>
> What you won't find in any psychoacoustics journal is any comparative
> listening test that ISN'T double-blind.

Actually you will find a few of those here and there. Sometimes bias
just isn't an issue.


>
> >And do psychoacoustic journals
> > test audio gear?
>
> Of course not. As I said earlier in this thread, scientific journals
> don't waste space on old news. And the fact that several categories of
> audio gear are audibly transparent is very old news in the
> psychoacoustics field.

Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the past so
extensively that it is old news/established conclusions based on a
substantial body of evidence that would explain why it isn't being
covered *now* But audio is a reletviely new technology in the grand
scheme of things so there must have been a time when it wasn't old
news. So what about the peer reviewed research that was done back when
it was news not old news? Can you cite the old news/body of peer
reviewed research from the past that supports your assertions of
transparency?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message

>>> This just reinforces my point about the quality of
>>> listeners that take part in these university level DBT
>>> studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you are so
>>> fond of.

>> The Meyer Moran tests were done "With the help of about
>> 60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other
>> interested parties.."

>> (The above is a quote from page one of the Meyer JAES Peer-reviewed
>> paper. )

>> Your claim is totally falsified.

> The paper also says that they used over one hundred
> participants, "of widely varying ages, activities, and
> levels of musical and audio experience.'

Thank you for presenting more evidence that is contrary to your previous
statements about the listening panels being compsed of just university
students.

While there may have been *some* university students in the listening
panels, it is abundently clear that the listeners were people of "of widely
varying ages, activities, and
levels of musical and audio experience."

>> BTW the rest of the sentence I quoted said:

>> "a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were
>> held over a period of about a year"

> Yep.

>> Thus we have recent confirmation of the validity of ABX
>> testing in a peer-reviewed paper.

> I didn't see the peer-review info noted in that paper.

I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols that are used to
qualify papers that are published in the JAES.

[bob]

On Apr 3, 10:33=A0am, Scott > wrote:

> Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the past so
> extensively that it is old news/established conclusions based on a
> substantial body of evidence that would explain why it isn't being
> covered *now* But audio is a reletviely new technology in the grand
> scheme of things so there must have been a time when it wasn't old
> news. So what about the peer reviewed research that was done back when
> it was news not old news? Can you cite the old news/body of peer
> reviewed research from the past that supports your assertions of
> transparency?

The invention of high-fidelity home audio reproduction was not a
revolutionary event in the field of psychoacoustics. It's not a study
of equipment; it's a study of human perception. And human perception
did not suddenly change when Avery Fisher started making amps. So, no,
the issue of the audibility of consumer audio products was never of
great interest to the field.

There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. In most fields other
than medicine, peer review was not really formalized until well into
the 20th century. Even since then, a lot of good, hard science never
makes it into one of the few top journals in any given field. And just
because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
it right.

A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)

As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
the measured performance of audio gear. The DBTs that have been done,
either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
science.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article >):

> On 26/03/2011 3:24 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> The hardest part was replacing the
>> multi-section electrolytic capacitor in the power supply (these are no
>> longer
>> available)
>
> I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic capacitors into a
> vintage valve amplifier just a few weeks ago. They are still produced in
> reasonable variety for the guitar amplifier market.

Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including a
Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section caps
aren't available any more. Do you have a source?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:40:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
> (in article >):

>> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
>> evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
>> aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
>> have proven better at.

I find it ironic that Harry continues to idolize the Oohashi tests when in
fact they are among the listening tests I know of that are most different
from "Just listening to music" of all that I know of. ABX is not about
hooking wires up to people's heads or putting them into large scale
diagnositic machines that make loud clanking sounds when they run.

>> Yet ABX is the test that Arny
>> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

>> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
>> normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
>> that it will not produce valid results.

This senstence is ludicrous coming from a proponent of highly mechanistic
tests such as those used by Oohashi.

>> One of the
>> principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
>> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
>> context of the variable under test.

That's what ABX does. Most of the ABX tests that we did in the early days
were done using proponents of the audible difference, using the proponent's
home systems.

> Well put.

No, straw man.

> These are some of the things that bother me
> about the body of conclusions that many of these tests
> produce.

We're aware of that. The real problem is that ABX tests don't support your
cherished beliefs about audio, such as the audible performance of certain
power amps for which you have *never* provided any technical support for.
Ditto for your cherished beliefs about high sample rates and magic DACs.

> As I have indicated before, I have participated
> in many DBT tests where we have worked hard to set up
> correctly, with level matching to less than a quarter of
> a dB both electrical and acoustical, set switch times,
> long samples,

Well there you go. It is well known that long samples are an enemy of
sensitive results.

> the switch operator in another room, all
> indications of a switch taking place masked (input
> lights, etc.), the AB box (where used) in an
> insulation-filled box so we can't hear the relays, etc.
> and we have returned statistically positive results for
> amps and DACs. . I have also been involved in DBTs where
> null results have been returned.

But you didn't say that the samples were time-synched within a few
milliseconds. I can ace any ABX test where the music is not accurately time
synched, even if the equipment being compared is in fact the very same
equipment.

> In those tests where a positive result occurred, I found
> the differences to be so trivial that only a very anal
> retentive audiophile could possibly not be happy with any
> of the units under test! While they all sounded a little
> different in some respect, they all sounded good. The
> only time we got a gross difference was when, for fun, we
> pulled out our host's old Dynaco ST-120 and ran it
> against a new, and very expensive Audio Research Hybrid
> HD220 amp. The results made us all laugh. The ST-120
> sounded dreadful while the AR was very neutral sounding.

Obviously the ST-120 was broken, and you have no technical tests to confirm
that it wasn't. If you ever did proper bench tests you'd know that
audiophile myth about this amplifier is vastly overstated and subject to
immense hyperbole.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:33=A0am, Scott > wrote:
>
> > Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the past so
> > extensively that it is old news/established conclusions based on a
> > substantial body of evidence that would explain why it isn't being
> > covered *now* But audio is a reletviely new technology in the grand
> > scheme of things so there must have been a time when it wasn't old
> > news. So what about the peer reviewed research that was done back when
> > it was news not old news? Can you cite the old news/body of peer
> > reviewed research from the past that supports your assertions of
> > transparency?
>
> The invention of high-fidelity home audio reproduction was not a
> revolutionary event in the field of psychoacoustics. It's not a study
> of equipment; it's a study of human perception. And human perception
> did not suddenly change when Avery Fisher started making amps. So, no,
> the issue of the audibility of consumer audio products was never of
> great interest to the field.

Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?


>
> There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
> reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
> field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.


> In most fields other
> than medicine, peer review was not really formalized until well into
> the 20th century.

Shouldn't be an issue with audio. The topics we debate here are even
newer.

> Even since then, a lot of good, hard science never
> makes it into one of the few top journals in any given field.

Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
"top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
in science.


> And just
> because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
> it right.

That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?


>
> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)

I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?


>
> As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
> the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
> the measured performance of audio gear.

And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
reviewed published studies.

> The DBTs that have been done,
> either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
> science.


What science? Show me the actual science, please.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

You developed ABX?

[C. Leeds]

On 3/28/2011 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

> In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
> DO think that new stuff is better than old.

How do you know this? Is it an assumption, is it hyperbole, or do you
actually have information to support your claim?

> Hell, much of the business model
> of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
> components to the latest and the greatest.

Again, how do you know this? I'm not certain that the image of the
always-upgrading audiophile isn't just a stereotype.

> Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
> been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

Which publication? Since you claim to be a journalist, you shouldn't
mind telling us.

[C. Leeds]

On 3/28/2011 5:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
an audio reviewer):

> Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAINMENT,
> first and foremost.

Is it more important to be entertaining than it is to be accurate?

> If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
> reader won't read his stuff.

Doesn't the writer risk being ignored if the reader can't distinguish
the writer's hyperbole from fact?

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):


> > Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
> > what constitutes proof than you do?
>
> I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for pro=
of
> yet. =A0Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts abo=
ut its
> efficacy for testing audio equipment.
>
> > And whose standard should we
> > trust, in that case?
>
> Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

YIKES!

Lemme see if I can help.

DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for one (1)
thing: Discerning audible differences via a relatively short test.
Period.

It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being better/worse than
another, only audibly different within that test period or not. It
DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to predict the long-term viability of one choice
or another for any given user. Only that one unit is (or is not)
audibly different within that test period or not.

To reason from the specific (piece A is-or-is-not audibly different
from piece B within THAT test) to the general - DBT is the be-all/end-
all *or* DBT is necessarily fatally flawed - is a classic fallacy. As
perceived from either camp.

DBT tests are necessarily short and therefore necessarily cannot be
predictive of long-term effects that may simply be too subtle to show
in a short-term test. It is useful as a screening mechanism. No more.
Nor does it even pretend to be any more than that.

So - there is no valid argument based on the merits as the actual
value of the process is self-evident. The only argument comes from
either denying that the test has any merit at all *or* forcing the
test to extend beyond its intentions.

If a $50 piece of vintage equipment modified on a hobbyist's bench
will in a well-designed DBT perform indistinguishably from a $15,000
piece of esoteric audio hardware it suggests (but does not prove) that
the $50 piece does at least as good a job as the more expensive piece
- and perhaps may be a valid alternative to test long-term.
Accordingly:

What I would like to see is a long term test where both pieces were
installed in 'the home'. And each day at 3:00 am (or the time closest
to that when the system has been off for at least one (1) hour), a
computer would run an algorithm and pick which of the two will be on
line for the next 24 hours. Each day the user votes UP or DOWN on the
listening experience of that day. That same computer will then deliver
the result after each unit has been on-line for about the same time
and over at least a 90 day total period. Naturally, results would be
available day-by-day as well.

Never gonna happen, but would put -paid- to all the drivel spouted
around DBT.

Too many oxen being gored for this subject to ever lie down and die
the death it so richly deserves, sadly. Consider only a few of them:

Audio venues & the staffs thereof - If speakers and other transducers
were the only valid subjects of discussion, most of them would be
instantly out of a job.

Esoteric electronics manufacturers - if the $200 amp performs
indistinguishably from the $15,000 amp - the same. The $200 amp guy
might be pretty happy - but the $15,000 guy might not.

Newsgroup denizens determined to have the last word on a discussion
that is 100% artificial and entirely meaningless in the first place.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Esmond Pitt[_2_]]

On 4/04/2011 2:54 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
> Do you have a source?

http://www.tubesandmore.com/

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 2:57=A0pm, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
> On 3/28/2011 5:44 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
> an audio reviewer):
>
> > Any reviewer worth his salt, knows that what he is writing is ENTERTAIN=
MENT,
> > first and foremost.
>
> Is it more important to be entertaining than it is to be accurate?

What constitutes an "accurate" subjective opinion?

>
> > If his writing style doesn't engage the reader, then the
> > reader won't read his stuff.
>
> Doesn't the writer risk being ignored if the reader can't distinguish
> the writer's hyperbole from fact?

Ignored? Apparently not.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 2:59=A0pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
> > (in article >):
> > > Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
> > > what constitutes proof than you do?
>
> > I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for p=
roof
> > yet. =A0Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts a=
bout its
> > efficacy for testing audio equipment.
>
> > > And whose standard should we
> > > trust, in that case?
>
> > Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt
>
> YIKES!
>
> Lemme see if I can help.
>
> DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for one (1)
> thing: Discerning audible differences via a relatively short test.
> Period.

Not true at all. It's useful for any sort of aural testing in which
bias may be an issue. It is quite useful for preference comparisons


>
> It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being better/worse than
> another, only audibly different within that test period or not.

That depends on the DBT design. A DBT most certainly can and often is
designed to make such a determination.

>It
> DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to predict the long-term viability of one choice
> or another for any given user. Only that one unit is (or is not)
> audibly different within that test period or not.
>
> To reason from the specific (piece A is-or-is-not audibly different
> from piece B within THAT test) to the general - DBT is the be-all/end-
> all *or* DBT is necessarily fatally flawed - is a classic fallacy. As
> perceived from either camp.
>
> DBT tests are necessarily short and therefore necessarily cannot be
> predictive of long-term effects that may simply be too subtle to show
> in a short-term test. It is useful as a screening mechanism. No more.
> Nor does it even pretend to be any more than that.

No they are not "necessarily short." They can be as long as they are
designed to be.


>
> Audio venues & the staffs thereof - If speakers and other transducers
> were the only valid subjects of discussion, most of them would be
> instantly out of a job.

What's an audio venue? Not really sure who you think would be out of a
job here. Audio review publications that believe this still sell
magazines. Audio retailers still sell product whether or not the buyer
believes one way or the other...who would be out of business again and
why?


>
> Esoteric electronics manufacturers - if the $200 amp performs
> indistinguishably from the $15,000 amp - the same. The $200 amp guy
> might be pretty happy - but the $15,000 guy might not.

So it's the makers of esoteric electronics? This is what percentage of
the audio industry?

Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps sound the same?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 3, 2:55=A0pm, Scott > wrote:

> We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
> the science of audio.

"Audio" is not a science. It is a branch of engineering that uses
established science to do convey, among other things, musical
performances through time and space. I think this is part of the
problem you are having understanding what, for example, Arnie is
saying to you. Engineers are not usually doing science, they are
using science to do practical things like building radios or bridges.
Of course we can find areas where the two overlap, but a good designer
of, say, an amplifier needs to do no science, only to know the
applicable science and apply it. You don't need to be a scientist to
build a safe bridge, you need to be an engineer who understands the
science that others discovered and how to apply it.

There is electrical science, the science of human perceptions and the
limitations of human hearing, the science of materials and how they
function that all go into "audio", along with others. But to say
"Audio is a science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
misunderstand what science is.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 3, 8:03=A0pm, Scott > wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2:59=A0pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps sound the same?- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
That all amps may or may not sound the same is neither relevant nor
important. Nor do I care. For me this is a hobby - and I intend to
enjoy it without being required to make artificial choices based on
artifical conditions based on artificial expectations. A DBT could be
quite useful to determine audible differences where that need to be at
issue. It would be utterly useless (to me) should I wish to enjoy
"testing" a piece of equipment in where I live. I have some tube amp
and I have some solid-state amps. They sound different - so what? I
enjoy them both very much. I could care less about which may be
'better'. And I know that my 40-watt power amp ain't nohow gonna cut
it when attempting to push the Saint-Saens organ symphony through the
Maggies at a more than moderate volume when compared to the 225 watt
amp. Sound alike? Define your terms. Sound different? Please define
those as well.

Again, when forcing a choice, much as forcing a card - the process is
flawed.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 8:25=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:55=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
>
> > We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
> > the science of audio.
>
> "Audio" is not a science.

Straw man. Never said it was.

> =A0It is a branch of engineering that uses
> established science to do convey, among other things, =A0musical
> performances through time and space.

Yeah that would be the science of audio.

> =A0I think this is part of the
> problem you are having understanding what, for example, Arnie is
> saying to you.

No I understand what he is saying just fine.

>=A0Engineers are not usually doing science, they are
> using science to do practical things like building radios or bridges.

Yeah..... not really relevant to the issue of the science that
alegedly supports of certain opinions of what is an is not audible in
audio....but yeah.


> Of course we can find areas where the two overlap, but a good designer
> of, say, an amplifier needs to do no science, only to know the
> applicable science and apply it.

That's fine but what is your point? I never said anything about what
an audio engineer needs to do in the way of science when designing an
amp.


> =A0You don't need to be a scientist to
> build a safe bridge, you need to be an engineer who understands the
> science that others discovered and how to apply it.

You don't need to be a scientist when cooking a fine meal or painting
a picture or roller skating. None of this has any relevance to any
point I have made. none



>
> There is electrical science, =A0the science of human perceptions and the
> limitations of human hearing, the science of materials and how they
> function that all go into =A0"audio", along with others. =A0But to say
> "Audio is a science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
> misunderstand what science is.

I never said it. So what is that? I say a blatent misrepresentation of
my position.


[ Please steer this back towards audio-related topics and
away from metadiscussion. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my
> standards for proof yet.

First off, its not up to me to personally satisfy you. In fact I have no
interest in doing so. I've got you pegged as a true believer who will never
be convinced.

Secondly, the mainstream audio, acoustical, and psychoacoustic establishment
has been reserarching this area for decades, and continue to make new
findings. For the most part my role has been to bring in releviant pieces of
evidence that they have developed. You dissatisfaction is not with me, it
is with them.

I would go so far as to say that the mainstream audio, acoustical, and
psychoacoustic establishment are well-informed and have a practical
viewpoint. Most discussions on RAHE involve people who are not particularly
well-informed about modern audio technology, and their judgements are
neither binding nor representative.

I think a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relevant
facts that is typical of some posters on RAHE has been the ofte-repeated
false rumor that the listening panels that were the basis of the Meyer and
Moran JAES paper were just poorly-informed untrained college students who
generally listened to low-bitrate MP3 recordings. Just another audiophile
myth!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


>> Of course not. As I said earlier in this thread,
>> scientific journals don't waste space on old news.

As a rule they also waste little if any time discussing branded
implementations of specific technology. People who read scientific journals
looking for test results of comparisions of branded products are bound to be
forever frustrated. If branded products are discussed, they are either
described using arbitrary symbols or via technical descriptions.

>> And the fact that several categories of audio gear are
>> audibly transparent is very old news in the
>> psychoacoustics field.

Exactly. For example the MPEG coder tests (covered by several peer-reviewed
papers) which go back to the previous millenium are obviously based on the
idea that the revealtory powers of speakers and amplifiers could be counted
on to be very, very good. The practice of using trained listeners in blind
tests was already generally accepted at that time. I will provide a
practical example of this at the end of this post.

> Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the
> past so extensively that it is old news/established
> conclusions based on a substantial body of evidence that
> would explain why it isn't being covered *now*.

Finally!

> But audio
> is a reletviely new technology in the grand scheme of
> things...

Which scheme of things? Audio gear that was either totally transparent or
very close to it has been generally available since no later than the late
1960s. At that time a leading source of non-transparency in both
professional and home audio systems was the necessary reliance on analog
recorded media. That was 50 years ago! Other than tranducers and rooms,
entirely transparent transparent audio systems for recording and playback
have been generally availible since the 1980s, which was 30 years ago.

Compared to other mainstream technology such as that related to information
science, 30-50 years ago is very old news. In 1983 a 16 mips computer with 2
gigabytes of strorage required maybe 50 killowatts of power to run,
required thousands of square feet in a climate-controlled machine room and
cost millions of dollars to obtain and maintain. Today a Sansa Clip has a
physical footprint the size of a comemerative stamp, has 200 mips of
computational power, over 18 gigabytes of memory, costs less than $60
including removable storage array (SDHC card available at your local drug
store!), and runs for at least a dozen hours on its built-in rechargable
lithium ion battery.

>so there must have been a time when it wasn't old news.

That was some time near the end of the past millenium. Details at the end
of this post.

> So what about the peer reviewed research that was
> done back when it was news not old news? Can you cite the
> old news/body of peer reviewed research from the past
> that supports your assertions of transparency?

Much of that is implied, not stated explicitly. There is a third source of
information that actually trumps peer-reviewed papers because the required
level of acceptance by the relevant approving body is even tougher. This
would be international standards. The relevant standard would be ITU BS
1116. ITU stands for the International Telecommuncations Union, and their
review board is easily as technically solid and prestigious as any
professional journal.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Interstingly enough, this document is dated near the end the previous
millenium, which serves to underscore my point that general acceptance of
the idea that sonically transparent audio gear is generally available is
"Old news".

[Arny Krueger]

"Ed Seedhouse" > wrote in message


> There is electrical science, the science of human
> perceptions and the limitations of human hearing, the
> science of materials and how they function that all go
> into "audio", along with others. But to say "Audio is a
> science" is, in my not so humble opinion, to completely
> misunderstand what science is.

Exactly. Audio is a technology, which means that it is the combination of
art and science.

One of the interesting things about audio is the fact that it largely ceased
to be a defining science or one that drove technological innovations in the
60s or 70s. Since then virtually every advance in audio has been a
derivative of advances made in other technological areas, largely
information technology.

The transistor was arguably invented for the purposes of the communcations
branch of audio technology, and that was the last major development that I
know of that was driven by the needs of audio technology.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> Lemme see if I can help.

Oh, boy! ;-)

> DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for
> one (1) thing: Discerning audible differences via a
> relatively short test. Period.

That's not helping, that's imposing a false personal agenda.

> It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being
> better/worse than another, only audibly different within
> that test period or not.

That is false to, because it ignores the purpose and widespread use of
well-known DBT testing technologies such as ABC/hr.

>It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to
> predict the long-term viability of one choice or another
> for any given user.

It is true that pure technological testing is often inadequate for marketing
and psychological purposes. So what?

> Only that one unit is (or is not)
> audibly different within that test period or not.

A false claim, repeated. See above.

> DBT tests are necessarily short

An often-falsifed erroneous claim.

This post demonstrated the futility of trying to using facts and logic to
deal with people with tightly-held personal agendas.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message

> On Apr 3, 8:03 pm, Scott > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
>> Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps
>> sound the same?- Hide quoted text -

> That all amps may or may not sound the same is neither
> relevant nor important.

Let's call a spade a spade. The above is a straw man argument.

> Nor do I care.

If you don't care Peter, why do you repeat the above false mantra over and
over again?

> For me this is a hobby - and I
> intend to enjoy it without being required to make artificial
> choices based on artifical conditions based on artificial expectations.

I agree that hobbiests don't need to pay attention to reality or
practicality as they pursue their whims.

> A DBT could be quite useful to determine audible differences where that
> need to be at issue. It would be utterly useless (to me) should I wish
> to enjoy "testing" a piece of equipment in where I live.

The idea of testing products as a means of enjoying them strikes me as being
pretty strange. I enjoy listening to music and audio gear is just a means to
that end. I mostly test audio gear when I am unsure that it is suitable for
my intended purpose. For example I was unsure of the sound quality of my
brand new Sansa Clip, so I ran some technical tests on it. Doing the tests
was not particularly enjoyable, but the confidence their results gave me was
helpful.

> I have some tube amp and I have some solid-state amps. They sound
> different -
> so what? I enjoy them both very much. I could care less about which
> may be 'better'.

Then by all means don't test it in any formal way!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it
>> exclusively.

> You developed ABX?

I built the first ABX comparator for audio gear and did the first ABX test
of audio gear.

The background is that our audio club (SMWTMS) was trying to develop a
practical methodology for doing DBTs. A series ofn equipment comparators
were built that were enhanced again and again based on experiences with them
by a committee of six club members including myself. I took the lead at one
point in the development process and produced a series of three comparators
that were successive enhancments of previously-developed concepts. The last
of the 3 could clearly be called a full implementation of the concept of ABX
testing. Additional enhancments by others resulted in the development of the
ABX Comparator that was described in detail in the Clark ABX JAES paper. I
also developed the first known relay box that could switch between two
pieces of high gain, high powered audio gear without audible switching
transients or other artifacts. The contact closure strategy for this relay
box was also described in Clark's JAES paper. I am mentioned by name in the
Clark JAES paper.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 3, 12:54=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage gear, including=
a
> Citation One preamp. I was told by everybody that these multi-section cap=
s
> aren't available any more. Do you have a source?

https://www.tubeworld.com/metcaps.htm

http://www.radiodaze.com/capsMS.htm

http://www.dynakitparts.com/store/product.aspx?id=3D273

http://www.vibroworld.com/parts/tech15.html

However, it is better, cheaper and more precise to simply re-stuff the
existing can with new capacitors terminating through the phenolic
wafer base. It takes a bit of skill and your wife's hair-dryer to
release the old innards (well, more practice than skill), but once you
have done it a few times it becomes quite simple. The most difficult
part of the process is de-soldering and releasing the old can from the
chassis without breaking off the twist-tabs. Modern capacitors are
tiny as compared to older types and so this is entirely practical.

Better: Single-value capacitors may be screened individually for
whatever parameters apply. A typical electrolytic may be -20%/+100%
and still meet 'tolerance'. Too much capacitance may mean a higher B+,
especially mixed with higher wall-plate voltages these days -
something to be considered. Better also as one may use a higher
voltage with little or no cost penalty - Dynaco as one very typical
example drove its power-supply filter caps at very, very near their
rated voltage. Mix that with wallplate voltages often in excess of
120V, and that can be a bad combination.

Cheaper: Individual capacitors made as-such are remarkably cheaper per
uF than sectional caps. And, you already have the can and know that it
will fit just fine. \

More precise - closely matched values, higher voltages, and the
ability to add small-value film caps internally across the individual
cap leads.

I stopped looking for sectionals 20 years ago - and haven't lost a
patient yet. Nor would I trust any NOS unit as (electrolytic)
capacitors age whether they are in use or not - in fact, they age more
from disuse than from use. Reforming is *possible*, but something I do
only with the full understanding that eventual failure is just that -
eventual. Will, not May, and When, not If.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
> (in article
> >):


>> I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
>> capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
>> weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
>> for the guitar amplifier market.
>
> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
> gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
> everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
> any more. Do you have a source?

As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product.
For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
tubed amps.

[bob]

On Apr 3, 5:55=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob > wrote:

> Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
> good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
> have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
> that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
> audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
> papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?

Well, if you're so sure they're there, why don't you go find them?
AES.org has a search function, you know.

> > There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
> > reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
> > field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
> the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
> review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
> it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
> are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
> then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
> about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
> fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.

I'm not having both ways. There are *textbooks* that support my
claims, for heaven's sake. There is nothing that supports yours. But
not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can be
applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
speak.

<snip>

> Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
> "top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
> one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
> review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
> in science.

Only the top few journals in most fields are peer-reviewed. That's all
I meant.

> > And just
> > because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
> > it right.
>
> That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
> one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?

There isn't. But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
understand.

> > A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
> > in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
> > in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
> > colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
> > only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
> > I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>
> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?

The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
Greek letter omega.

> > As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
> > the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
> > the measured performance of audio gear.
>
> And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
> reviewed published studies.

What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
a search function, too.

> > The DBTs that have been done,
> > either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
> > science.
>
> What science? Show me the actual science, please.

If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 4, 8:20=A0am, bob > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:55=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:54=A0am, bob > wrote:
> > Well there is this little publication called the AESJ. I have it on
> > good authority that they actually are concerned with such things and
> > have actually published papers on the subject. Is it your position
> > that audio engineers have never been concerned with the issue of
> > audibile qualities of consumer audio products and that there are no
> > papers published by the AESJ concerning the subject?
>
> Well, if you're so sure they're there, why don't you go find them?
> AES.org has a search function, you know.

I have checked. Strangely enough, nothing on amplifier transparency
per se. Plenty on other such things.

>
> > > There's also a fallacy at work here about the centrality of peer-
> > > reviewed journals. The vast majority of what we know in any academic
> > > field never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> > We are not talking about academics here we are talking about science.
> > the science of audio. The standard of acceptance in science *is* peer
> > review. Anything less is junk in the world of science. You can't have
> > it both ways. You can't wave the science flag and point out that there
> > are no peer reviewed studies supporting opinions you disagree with and
> > then say science really isn't important when the same is pointed out
> > about your opinions. If this is you putting away the science flag then
> > fine. IMO that is the right thing to do.
>
> I'm not having both ways.

Of course not, because I'm calling you on it.

> There are *textbooks* that support my
> claims, for heaven's sake.

Well now you are moving the goal posts. 1. it is irrelevant that there
are such text books. There are "text books" that support creationism.
Does that make the creationists right? 2. If we allow for a sub
discussion that has nor relevance to the assertion of *scientific
support* of transparency of amplifiers and move to a discussion of
"text book" proof then you need to provide the support. You *say* Text
books support your claim. OK fine. Make your claim clear and then
provide refferences from textbooks that support it.


> There is nothing that supports yours. But
> not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
> peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
> principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can be
> applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
> differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
> former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
> speak.

You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
about such claims.


>
> <snip>
>
> > Nice subtle movement of the goal posts. No one said anything about the
> > "top" journals. Clearly the AESJ isn't one of them and I accepted the
> > one peer reviewed paper cited from that journal. The fact is peer
> > review is the measuring stick and millions of papers pass peer review
> > in science.
>
> Only the top few journals in most fields are peer-reviewed. That's all
> I meant.

Then you are plainly wrong. That is a level of wrong that for me calls
into question your ability to discuss the subject of science and the
peer review process. Here are some primers on the subject. I suggest
you review them before discussing the issue nay further.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/
"There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to
decide which research results should be published in a scientific
journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers
to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers)
before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in
scientific journals worldwide every year."

Yikes! More than one million per year!!! all these by only a few top
journals? Sure about that?

>
> > > And just
> > > because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
> > > it right.
>
> > That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
> > one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?
>
> There isn't.

Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one does
not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
support the assertion of amplifier transparency.


> But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
> understand.

Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't there
the claim of scientific support is bogus.


>
> > > A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
> > > in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
> > > in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
> > > colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
> > > only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
> > > I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>
> > I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
> > things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
> > this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
> > a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
> > eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
> > every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>
> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
> Greek letter omega.

I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0. I get the feeling
you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

>
> > > As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
> > > the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped agains=
t
> > > the measured performance of audio gear.
>
> > And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
> > reviewed published studies.
>
> What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
> a search function, too.

Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
your burden of proof. I ask knowing there is nothing to support your
assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.

>
> > > The DBTs that have been done,
> > > either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
> > > science.
>
> > What science? Show me the actual science, please.
>
> If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)
>

The fact is you can't. The science isn't there. Feel free to prove
me wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> Well now you are moving the goal posts.

No, Bob is pointing out the existence of goal posts that have been there all
along.

> 1. it is irrelevant that there are such text books.

This is an attempt to dismiss evidence whose investigation is relevant and
warranted.

> There are "text books" that support creationism.

There are also peer-reviewed professional journals that support creationism.

> Does that make the creationists right?

We're talking technology not religion, so metaphysical topics like
creationism are irrelevant.

> 2. If we allow for a sub discussion
> that has nor relevance to the assertion of *scientific
> support* of transparency of amplifiers and move to a
> discussion of "text book" proof then you need to provide
> the support. You *say* Text books support your claim. OK
> fine. Make your claim clear and then provide refferences
> from textbooks that support it.

Zwicker and Fastl's classic text about psychoacoustics comes to mind. It
discusses the threshold of audibility of many kinds of noise and distortion.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:48:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my
>> standards for proof yet.
>
> First off, its not up to me to personally satisfy you. In fact I have no
> interest in doing so. I've got you pegged as a true believer who will never
> be convinced.

It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
differences. There most assuredly ARE differences. They are mostly
inconsequential to be sure, but the do exist. If a DBT doesn't bring them to
light for the statistically significant majority of listeners, then one of
several things must be true: The test procedure is somehow faulty, the
listeners aren't listening for the right things, and the difference go
unnoticed, or that DBT doesn't work for audio gear, possibly because of my
second alternative. I do know that people have different levels of audio
perception. Notice I didn't say that they had different hearing acumen as the
levels and scope of the actual physical process of hearing (audiometry) are
very well understood. But there is listening and there is listening, and most
people just don't notice the same differences as others, and many don't
notice any differences at all. From what you write, I gather that you are in
the latter category.

> Secondly, the mainstream audio, acoustical, and psychoacoustic establishment
> has been reserarching this area for decades, and continue to make new
> findings. For the most part my role has been to bring in releviant pieces of
> evidence that they have developed. You dissatisfaction is not with me, it
> is with them.

I have no dissatisfaction at all. It's just that while your arguments are
cogent and well presented, so are your prejudices. In light of those, your
arguments do not compel.

> I would go so far as to say that the mainstream audio, acoustical, and
> psychoacoustic establishment are well-informed and have a practical
> viewpoint. Most discussions on RAHE involve people who are not particularly
> well-informed about modern audio technology, and their judgements are
> neither binding nor representative.

It also probably involves people whose ability to hear many of the things
discussed here is not fully formed or is lacking altogether. I know that it
involves people whose passion and/or prejudicial baggage is such that they
cannot and will not see both sides of a debate.

> I think a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relevant
> facts that is typical of some posters on RAHE has been the ofte-repeated
> false rumor that the listening panels that were the basis of the Meyer and
> Moran JAES paper were just poorly-informed untrained college students who
> generally listened to low-bitrate MP3 recordings. Just another audiophile
> myth!

I think that a good recent example of the poor level of awareness of relative
facts is that some of the posters on RAHE fail to read what Meyer/Moran
actually wrote, and then twist what other RAHE poster wrote about that paper
in order to discredit them.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:21:09 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
>> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
> ven
>> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
>> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.
>
> This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
> science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
> takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
> hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
> sounds--without a shred of evidence.
>
> In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
> psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
> training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
> reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.
>
> The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
> to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
> changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
> for objective listening tests of any kind.

Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen. It is pretty well
established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both as to
frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these things in
a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability. You
encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I'm
sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But there
are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
"golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years of
listening experience. Anyone can do it, it just takes discipline and
dedication. Of course, the reality is that most people don't bother. Most
audiophiles don't even develop the skill. Noticing that others have developed
this ability has given rise to the "golden-ear" myth. Everyone knows the old
saw, "you look but you do not see." Well, the audio implementation of that
old saw is, "you listen but you do not hear."

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:19:40 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 2, 12:25=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>>>
>> Only if you concede that the average iPod toting teen wouldn't know decen=
> t
>> sound if it came up and bit them in the arse!
>>
>
> Someone once said that the construct of the test itself intereferes
> with the normal evaluative process.

Is that the same as saying that testing the hypothesis often changes it's
result?

> This would imply that the iPod toting teen has, knowingly or
> unknowingly, come to terms with the conundrum of determining good
> sound interfering with the normal evaluative process of the music.

And that's relevant to the point, exactly how?

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 06:29:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> This just reinforces my point about the quality of
>>>> listeners that take part in these university level DBT
>>>> studies such as the Meyer/Moran paper that you are so
>>>> fond of.
>
>>> The Meyer Moran tests were done "With the help of about
>>> 60 members of the Boston Audio Society and many other
>>> interested parties.."
>
>>> (The above is a quote from page one of the Meyer JAES Peer-reviewed
>>> paper. )
>
>>> Your claim is totally falsified.
>
>> The paper also says that they used over one hundred
>> participants, "of widely varying ages, activities, and
>> levels of musical and audio experience.'
>
> Thank you for presenting more evidence that is contrary to your previous
> statements about the listening panels being compsed of just university
> students.

You're welcome, except that I never said that the panel was composed of JUST
university students.
>
> While there may have been *some* university students in the listening
> panels, it is abundently clear that the listeners were people of "of widely
> varying ages, activities, and
> levels of musical and audio experience."
>
>>> BTW the rest of the sentence I quoted said:
>
>>> "a series of double-blind (A/B/X) listening tests were
>>> held over a period of about a year"
>
>> Yep.
>
>>> Thus we have recent confirmation of the validity of ABX
>>> testing in a peer-reviewed paper.
>
>> I didn't see the peer-review info noted in that paper.
>
> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols that are used to
> qualify papers that are published in the JAES.

Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be surprising. However, you are
addressing a forum that I dare say has very few participants who are members
of the JAES. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to enlighten us about these
matters when you make such a statement as you do above. Otherwise, your
statement is merely empty rhetoric.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:56:50 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> On 3/28/2011 5:59 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about his use of hyperbole as
> an audio reviewer):
>
>> In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophiles
>> DO think that new stuff is better than old.
>
> How do you know this? Is it an assumption, is it hyperbole, or do you
> actually have information to support your claim?
>
>> Hell, much of the business model
>> of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
>> components to the latest and the greatest.
>
> Again, how do you know this? I'm not certain that the image of the
> always-upgrading audiophile isn't just a stereotype.
>
>> Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I've
>> been with the same publication for more than 16 years.
>
> Which publication? Since you claim to be a journalist, you shouldn't
> mind telling us.
>

Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds, but for the record, I am
directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name or
by identifying the publication. What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
now, wouldn't they? That's why I use a nom-de-plume when posting here.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
>> (in article
>> >):
>
>
>>> I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
>>> capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
>>> weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
>>> for the guitar amplifier market.
>>
>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
>> gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
>> everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
>> any more. Do you have a source?
>
> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
> modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
> generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end product.
> For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
> tubed amps.
>
>

Yes, that was certainly an alternative. Since the Citation had ample space
under the chassis, I merely replaced the multi-section cap with modern caps
wired under the chassis. I left the old multi-section cap on the chassis but
completely disconnected, however, to maintain an authentic look.

[bob]

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Someone is confusing hearing acumen with LISTENING acumen.

That someone would be you, as you are about to demonstrate:

> It is pretty well
> established that most normal people hear the same range of sounds, both a=
s to
> frequency response and dynamic range and that they respond to these thing=
s in
> a similar way. OTOH, some people, when listening to music, hear things in
> music that other people miss entirely. This is LISTENING ability.

Fine. In that case, the difference between two audio components has
nothing to do with what you are calling listening ability. It is not
that there are "things in music" which can be heard through one amp
but not another. It is that there are *partial loudness differences*
between the two. If you don't understand and recognize the difference,
you can't begin to understand the issues here.

> You
> encounter all the time the myth about "golden-eared audiophiles". Well, I=
'm
> sure that I need to tell no one here that there is no such thing. But the=
re
> are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for the minutest
> anomalies in the reproduction of music by audio gear. There's nothing
> "golden" about it, all it takes is a willingness to do it and many years =
of
> listening experience.

I seriously doubt there are many audiophiles in the world who have
trained themselves properly to hear differences, or would even know
how. If you think it takes "many years of listening experience," we
can confidently put you in the category of not knowing how. You can't
train your ears to hear the kinds of sonic differences we are talking
about simply by listening to music. Sean Olive does not train his
listening panel that way. The people who test audio codecs do not
train their test subjects that way, nor would it pass muster with the
ITU.

bob

[bob]

On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
> this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
> conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
> differences. There most assuredly ARE differences

Just for the record, your past efforts to describe these DBTs has left
me with very low confidence that you know what a true DBT entails. You
were unable to describe anything resembling a forced-choice protocol
(absolutely necessary for a meaningful test), nor could you present
any results that could be analyzed for statistical significance.
Indeed, despite your insistence that these tests had positive results,
you admitted that you didn't know what the results were.

You'll have to do much better than that if you want your experiences
taken seriously.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 4, 12:54=A0pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:00=A0am, Scott > wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
> > 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
> > do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
> > whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0. I get the feeling
> > you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm
>
> =A0 =A00/0 is undefined. =A0You might want to review your math.
>
That would be true if that were a *fraction* and while it does give
that appearance as I posted it, it is not a fraction. It is a ratio.
If it were to move to 1/0 the "ratio" would be 100%-0%. If it were a
fraction it would still be "undefined" or more accurately an
irrational number. My math is fine on this one. Gues I should have
used a dash the first time as well as the second time. my bad.


[ Metadiscussion isn't helpful. Let's return to audio. -- dsr ]

[bob]

On Apr 4, 1:00=A0pm, Scott > wrote:

> You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
> corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
> transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
> about such claims.

<snip>

> Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one does
> not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
> science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
> The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
> plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
> the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
> support the assertion of amplifier transparency.
>
> > But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
> > understand.
>
> Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't there
> the claim of scientific support is bogus.

<snip>

> =A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there. =A0Feel free to prove
> me wrong.

See, here's the thing, Scott. You're not a scientist. You're a
cosmetologist. So you don't get to say what does and does not
constitute science, or what would constitute meaningful scientific
evidence for any given proposition.

What you do get to say is that you, personally, will not be convinced
by anything less than a published, peer-reviewed study directly
comparing amps, DACs, etc. But you've already been told that no such
studies exist and that no working scientist would bother conducting
such a study. Which makes it very convenient for someone who wants to
pretend that the audiophile mythologies he clings to haven't been
exposed as myth. But that's not science, that's denialism.

There isn't much point in arguing with someone hiding behind that
particular fig leaf.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:54:30 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 4, 2:38=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> It was a rhetorical statement as you cannot possibly convince me that all
>> this stuff sounds EXACTLY the same. I have too many correctly set-up and
>> conducted DBTs under MY belt to think for a moment that there are no
>> differences. There most assuredly ARE differences
>
> Just for the record, your past efforts to describe these DBTs has left
> me with very low confidence that you know what a true DBT entails. You
> were unable to describe anything resembling a forced-choice protocol
> (absolutely necessary for a meaningful test), nor could you present
> any results that could be analyzed for statistical significance.
> Indeed, despite your insistence that these tests had positive results,
> you admitted that you didn't know what the results were.

You are painting with much too broad a brush, here. The only DBT that I
didn't know the results of was one that I attended that was put on by a
high-end DAC manufacturer. All the others I know the results. And yes, I did
mention that fact here. But that was THE ONLY ONE.
>
> You'll have to do much better than that if you want your experiences
> taken seriously.

Taken seriously by you, you mean.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> But there
> are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
> the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
> audio gear.

I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
hearing a difference?

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 28, 5:59=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophil=
es
> DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business mo=
del
> of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
> components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many
> audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than olde=
r
> stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of thi=
s
> widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on.
> Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I'=
ve
> been with the same publication for more than 16 years.

hmmmm..... Business Model - I get that. And in order for the business
to survive, it _must_ support and adopt the myth (for lack of a better
word) that new equipment is necessarily better than old equipment. And
this is an absolute necessity when the equipment in question does not
age in a linear, predictable manner as to many other consumer goods -
vehicles, appliances, clothing and so forth - nor does it go in or out
of fashion as other consumer goods, nor does it become more or less
energy-efficient as do appliances, vehicles, or safer as do appliances
and vehicles as they advance. If {insert favorite maker name here}
states that the amplifier made and sold today is absolutely the best
there is upon which no improvement may be made - where does that leave
them tomorrow?

Audio 'improvements' remind me of that proverbial Vanishing Bird (not
to be mistaken for the Ooh-AHhhh bird) that flies in ever decreasing
circles until it finally vanishes up its own fundament (the Ooh-AHhhh
bird is a one-pound bird that lays a two-pound egg).

I know more than a few audiophiles - and more than a few purveyors of
audio equipment. I have found from long association with both that the
one more-or-less excludes the other during the sales process. I know
one (1) reviewer-of-equipment at a professional level - and bluntly, I
would not trust that individual to call it daytime at noon. A decent
individual - but within that profession no better than any given
congress person.

Ah, well. I really do not believe for one hummingbird heartbeat that
"new" is necessarily better than old - and in many cases I would posit
that it is far worse. Nor do I think that outside of transducers and
other analog media (tape, vinyl, FM *analog* tuners) that there is
much room for improvement. See "vanishing bird" above. And I also
would suggest that at least within my limited experience most
audiophiles - really - with even half-a-brain pretty much know what
they like and pretty much leave it at that eschewing the magic Kool-
Aid entirely. Starting with cables and other interconnects....

It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody ever went broke
underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course do I think
that "all amps sound alike". The one does not follow from the other.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> But there
>> are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen for
>> the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music by
>> audio gear.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. In our experience, audiophiles who claim to have
> sensitive ears generally don't do better than those who don't, once you
> remove the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.
>
> Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a sensitive listener
> in the same sense that watching to see where the ball lands and rolls to is
> a prerequisite for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of blind
> testing, how does one know for sure that one is actually hearing or not
> hearing a difference?

Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing differences as I am just
listening to say, a phono cartridge and concluding that it's too bright,
deficient in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message

>> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols
>> that are used to qualify papers that are published in
>> the JAES.

> Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
> surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
> dare say has very few participants who are members of the
> JAES.

The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have access to AES
papers. For years I relied on a local library's JAES collection. In fact I
haven't been an AES member for over 20 years.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 4, 3:22=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
> >> (in article
> >> >):
>
> >>> I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
> >>> capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
> >>> weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
> >>> for the guitar amplifier market.
>
> >> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
> >> gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
> >> everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
> >> any more. Do you have a source?
>
> > As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
> > modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this=
is
> > generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end produc=
t.

[Andrew Haley]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
>> gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
>> everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
>> any more. Do you have a source?
>
> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection
> of modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough
> that this is generally very easy to do, and results in an
> equal-or-better end product. For example one of my friends did this
> with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.

I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of replacing a
multi-section cap with another one? Can't you just put a single-
section cap in its place, or is the problem that the values/ voltages
aren't available?

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> But there
>>> are audiophiles who have trained themselves to listen
>>> for the minutest anomalies in the reproduction of music
>>> by audio gear.
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. In our experience,
>> audiophiles who claim to have sensitive ears generally
>> don't do better than those who don't, once you remove
>> the crutch of seeing what is being listened to.

>> Blind testing is a prerequisite for learning how to be a
>> sensitive listener in the same sense that watching to
>> see where the ball lands and rolls to is a prerequisite
>> for becoming a good golfer. Without the discipline of
>> blind testing, how does one know for sure that one is
>> actually hearing or not hearing a difference?

> Difference? I'm not so much talking about hearing
> differences as I am just listening to say, a phono
> cartridge and concluding that it's too bright, deficient
> in bass, has a broad suckout in the midrange etc.

Now you've got two problems. The first problem is a matter of references.
What is your reliable reference for establishing the proper sonic balance?
Don't tell me its the concert that you went to three months ago because we
know for sure that you can;t possibly hear with precision based on a
reference that is days, weeks, and months old. The reference needs to be
very recent, preferably in the last few seconds. Then you still have the
possibility that your perception is a matter of bias and illusion, and not
actually happening.

I would say that your reliability as a listener is highly questionable,
simply because you deny potential strong influences and take no steps to
control them. Nothing personal - I would say the same of anybody who listens
like you, and science completely backs me up.

Why not turn the question around on me? Ask me why I'm not affected by the
same influences when I mix, equalize, choose and position mics, and apply
EFX when I mix live sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message


> ... in order for
> the business to survive, it _must_ support and adopt the
> myth (for lack of a better word) that new equipment is
> necessarily better than old equipment.

Or at least more suitable.

> And this is an absolute necessity when the equipment in question does
> not age in a linear, predictable manner as to many other
> consumer goods - vehicles, appliances, clothing and so
> forth - nor does it go in or out of fashion as other
> consumer goods, nor does it become more or less
> energy-efficient as do appliances, vehicles, or safer as
> do appliances and vehicles as they advance.

All excellent points. The fact that some audiophiles are willing to pay
exhorbitant prices for certain pieces of legacy audio gear, and brag about
its superior sound quality exactly supports your points.

> If {insert
> favorite maker name here} states that the amplifier made
> and sold today is absolutely the best there is upon which
> no improvement may be made - where does that leave them
> tomorrow?

The manufacturer can grow laterally, but he sacrifices repeat customers. In
order to grow laterally he has to create the impression that his product is
superior to the alternatives.

> Audio 'improvements' remind me of that proverbial
> Vanishing Bird (not to be mistaken for the Ooh-AHhhh
> bird) that flies in ever decreasing circles until it
> finally vanishes up its own fundament (the Ooh-AHhhh bird
> is a one-pound bird that lays a two-pound egg).

LOL!

> I know more than a few audiophiles - and more than a few
> purveyors of audio equipment. I have found from long
> association with both that the one more-or-less excludes
> the other during the sales process. I know one (1)
> reviewer-of-equipment at a professional level - and
> bluntly, I would not trust that individual to call it
> daytime at noon. A decent individual - but within that
> profession no better than any given congress person.

This is confirmed by our experience with blind tests that show that
reviewers and dealers do not necessarily hear small differences any better
other audiophiles.


> It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody
> ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
> American public.
>
> The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course
> do I think that "all amps sound alike". The one does not
> follow from the other.

Also: "Hope springs eternal." High end audiophiles who make a steady
stream of serial acquisitions always beleive that superior sound is just
around the corner.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of
>>> vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was
>>> told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't
>>> available any more. Do you have a source?
>>
>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal
>> a collection of modern capacitors inside of it.
>> Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally
>> very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end
>> product. For example one of my friends did this with a
>> pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.
>
> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't available?

The sections of multi-section capacitors are not usually hooked together
directly. For example one section might be hooked to the cathode of the
rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter choke, and the third to
a resistor that is part of a decoupling network for a phono preamp.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:29:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>
>>> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols
>>> that are used to qualify papers that are published in
>>> the JAES.
>
>> Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
>> surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
>> dare say has very few participants who are members of the
>> JAES.
>
> The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have access to AES
> papers. For years I relied on a local library's JAES collection. In fact I
> haven't been an AES member for over 20 years.
>
>

That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's this obscure, the
onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with the information. 30 years ago I, too,
was an AES member, but I certainly don't know what the protocols for
screening JAES papers for publication are. I still say no one here except you
and possibly one or two other posters here who know that.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:22:50 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article >):

> On Mar 28, 5:59=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> In my case, I used a similar device based on the fact that MOST audiophil=
> es
>> DO think that new stuff is better than old. Hell, much of the business mo=
> del
>> of home audio is based upon the audiophile striving to "upgrade" his
>> components to the latest and the greatest. The reality is that while many
>> audiophiles do not think that newer stuff is necessarily better than olde=
> r
>> stuff, the vast majority probably do. But, by reminding the reader of thi=
> s
>> widely held wisdom, I create a literary "peg" to hang my anecdote on.
>> Oh, yes, and one more thing. I STILL work as an equipment reviewer and I'=
> ve
>> been with the same publication for more than 16 years.
>
> hmmmm..... Business Model - I get that. And in order for the business
> to survive, it _must_ support and adopt the myth (for lack of a better
> word) that new equipment is necessarily better than old equipment. And
> this is an absolute necessity when the equipment in question does not
> age in a linear, predictable manner as to many other consumer goods -
> vehicles, appliances, clothing and so forth - nor does it go in or out
> of fashion as other consumer goods, nor does it become more or less
> energy-efficient as do appliances, vehicles, or safer as do appliances
> and vehicles as they advance. If {insert favorite maker name here}
> states that the amplifier made and sold today is absolutely the best
> there is upon which no improvement may be made - where does that leave
> them tomorrow?

Yes, all of that is true. How do you sell the same thing (say an amplifier)
to the same people over and over unless your customer base believes that your
current latest and greatest is better than your previous latest and greatest
and better than your competition's latest and greatest, past or present?

> Audio 'improvements' remind me of that proverbial Vanishing Bird (not
> to be mistaken for the Ooh-AHhhh bird) that flies in ever decreasing
> circles until it finally vanishes up its own fundament (the Ooh-AHhhh
> bird is a one-pound bird that lays a two-pound egg).
>
> I know more than a few audiophiles - and more than a few purveyors of
> audio equipment. I have found from long association with both that the
> one more-or-less excludes the other during the sales process. I know
> one (1) reviewer-of-equipment at a professional level - and bluntly, I
> would not trust that individual to call it daytime at noon. A decent
> individual - but within that profession no better than any given
> congress person.

I certainly have known reviewers that fall into that category. You can
usually tell them when you encounter them. Some reviewers (like me) will
always turn down an assignment to review things like cables and
interconnects, cable lifts, blocks of wood that sit on one's components and
makes them somehow "sound better" and other audio "voodoo" products. The
other kind will embrace this nonsense and actually get several thousand words
about the "sound" of these soundless or non-functioning devices.

> Ah, well. I really do not believe for one hummingbird heartbeat that
> "new" is necessarily better than old - and in many cases I would posit
> that it is far worse. Nor do I think that outside of transducers and
> other analog media (tape, vinyl, FM *analog* tuners) that there is
> much room for improvement. See "vanishing bird" above. And I also
> would suggest that at least within my limited experience most
> audiophiles - really - with even half-a-brain pretty much know what
> they like and pretty much leave it at that eschewing the magic Kool-
> Aid entirely. Starting with cables and other interconnects....

I wish those you know were in the majority, but alas, they are not.
>
> It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody ever went broke
> underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Amen to that.
>
> The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course do I think
> that "all amps sound alike". The one does not follow from the other.

They don't, but, as I've said several times the difference is like counting
angels on the head of a pin; not worth the effort.

> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
>

[bob]

On Apr 5, 12:47=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's this obscure, the
> onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with the information. 30 years ago I, to=
o,
> was an AES member, but I certainly don't know what the protocols for
> screening JAES papers for publication are. I still say no one here except=
you
> and possibly one or two other posters here who know that.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not even an engineer, and have never
worked in the audio field in any capacity. And even I know the JAES is
a peer-reviewed journal. Wake up.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:29:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>>>> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols
>>>> that are used to qualify papers that are published in
>>>> the JAES.
>>
>>> Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
>>> surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
>>> dare say has very few participants who are members of
>>> the JAES.
>>
>> The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have
>> access to AES papers. For years I relied on a local
>> library's JAES collection. In fact I haven't been an AES
>> member for over 20 years.

> That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's
> this obscure, the onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with
> the information.

There's nothing obscure about the AES Journal review process. It is
described in this document:

JAES Volume 57 Issue 1/2 pp. 3-4; January 2009 . The author is John
Vanderkooy.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:19 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

>> It was Mr. Menken who wrote that famous phrase: Nobody
>> ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
>> American public.
>>
>> The high-end audio industry lives by that. Nor, of course
>> do I think that "all amps sound alike". The one does not
>> follow from the other.
>
> Also: "Hope springs eternal." High end audiophiles who make a steady
> stream of serial acquisitions always beleive that superior sound is just
> around the corner.
>

The entire market is based on that. With fewer and fewer young people
becoming audiophiles, the chance to sell new components to new clientele
becomes becomes more and more remote. Manufacturers HAVE to sell new
components for old to the same (or shrinking) market size (and niches within
that market) year after year.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 01:36:10 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 4, 3:22=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:54:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 17:49:24 -0700, Esmond Pitt wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> >):
>>
>>>>> I fitted two brand-new multi-section electrolytic
>>>>> capacitors into a vintage valve amplifier just a few
>>>>> weeks ago. They are still produced in reasonable variety
>>>>> for the guitar amplifier market.
>>
>>>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of vintage
>>>> gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was told by
>>>> everybody that these multi-section caps aren't available
>>>> any more. Do you have a source?
>>
>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal a collection of
>>> modern capacitors inside of it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this=
> is
>>> generally very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end produc=
> t.
>>> For example one of my friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
>>> tubed amps.
>>
>> Yes, that was certainly an alternative. Since the Citation had ample spac=
> e
>> under the chassis, I merely replaced the multi-section cap with modern ca=
> ps
>> wired under the chassis. I left the old multi-section cap on the chassis =
> but
>> completely disconnected, however, to maintain an authentic look.- Hide qu=
> ote d text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Have a care putting caps willy-nilly under the chassis. In more than a
> few cases you risk rF interference installing caps with unshielded
> leads, and/or hum loops for the same reason. Those of us who make a
> habit of restoring highly sensitive multi-band tube radios are well
> acquainted with this issue - and there is quite a bit of cross-
> fertilization between these two branches of the hobby. Caps are kept
> in cans and above the chassis for a reason more than just good looks.
>
> Further to this, if you were an afficionado of vintage equipment and
> followed some of the original US-made AR electronics and the
> literature around it, you would have come across articles written by
> their designers on how the early iterations of their amps were
> sensitive to citizens' band radio inteference due to the electrolytic
> reaction of their rivet plating and their chassis plating - and the
> phono-ground to the chassis through the rivet. No kidding. I have a
> perhaps-over complimentary feeling towards AR - they really did let it
> all hang out with their customers. I remember a 3-page apology I got
> from their service department (in 1975) when I had sent them one of
> their amps for the second time for the same problem. Chapter and verse
> how the original design flaw was discovered, corrected and how they
> missed it on mine. Felix Bartholdi signed that note. And over the next
> many years until they folded altogether we spoke on a regular basis -
> just keeping up. To the point that in 2008, when I needed very
> specific parts to restore an AR amp, he connected me to the original
> designer - by conference call - who sent me a half-dozen special-
> purchase transistors from his private stash, gratis.
>
> Yes, old is quite often much better than new.... as are the people
> behind it.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
>

Interesting anecdote. Thanks.

Well, the Citation I that I restored was my only foray into that end of the
hobby. I found this preamp at an electronics flea market, complete with wood
case. Since I had lusted after one in high school (Stewart Hegeman had always
been one of my audio design heros), I bought the thing for peanuts. Upon
getting it home, I found the switches and pots to be noisy, the background
hiss was higher than I would accept, and it had a slight hum that became an
annoying hum on phono. So I decided to rebuild it. I found a schematic and a
parts list on-line, and bought all modern parts: metal-film resistors,
polypropylene, polystyrene, and mylar capacitors for the signal path, and
modern electrolytic caps for the power supply. When it was finished (a
daunting task, as this thing was NOT simple like the Dyna PAS-3), it was
quiet, didn't hum, and sounded excellent. The only problem with it was that
the RCA I/O jacks were the old-fashioned tin-plated ones with the ceramic
insulator doughnuts in them and they were in closely spaced pairs, riveted to
the top of the chassis (pointing toward the ceiling rather than perpendicular
to the back apron). These were made in the days when the only available
interconnects were those one made oneself. There was absolutely NO clearance
between each input for two moulded cables with strain reliefs side-by-side.
So the thing sat around for a couple of years while I sort of half-heartedly
looked for a practical way to replace the jack field on the back with some
modern single-hole mounting gold plated connectors (such as those sold by WBT
et al). I had toyed with the notion of cutting the top of the chassis out and
replacing it with another piece of steel, but I realized that even with both
halves of the rear jack field replaced (one on the left side of the chassis
and one on the right side), there would not be room for all of the I/O jacks
(at a sufficient clearance to allow for modern strain-relieved cables) needed
for the unit. I finally sold it for a fraction of the $400 or so that I had
sunk into it.

I do not routinely restore vintage gear, although I can see where it could be
a rewarding hobby for those so inclined. I did it once and that was enough
(ditto for restoring cars. I did it once - a 1986 Alfa Romeo GTV-6, no need
to go through that again).

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Andrew Haley" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of
>>>> vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was
>>>> told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't
>>>> available any more. Do you have a source?
>>>
>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal
>>> a collection of modern capacitors inside of it.
>>> Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally
>>> very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end
>>> product. For example one of my friends did this with a
>>> pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.
>>
>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
>> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
>> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
>> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't available?
>
> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not usually hooked together
> directly. For example one section might be hooked to the cathode of the
> rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter choke, and the third to
> a resistor that is part of a decoupling network for a phono preamp.
>
>

Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi" network power supply filter
with a choke or resistor between the two sections.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Andrew Haley" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of
>>>>> vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was
>>>>> told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't
>>>>> available any more. Do you have a source?
>>>>
>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal
>>>> a collection of modern capacitors inside of it.
>>>> Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally
>>>> very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end
>>>> product. For example one of my friends did this with a
>>>> pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.
>>>
>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
>>> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
>>> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
>>> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't available?
>>
>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not usually
>> hooked together directly. For example one section might
>> be hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube, the
>> second to the output of a filter choke, and the third to
>> a resistor that is part of a decoupling network for a
>> phono preamp.

> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi" network
> power supply filter with a choke or resistor between the
> two sections.

Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and "....he
second to the output of a filter choke...", per my post above.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:34:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:29:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the protocols
>>>>> that are used to qualify papers that are published in
>>>>> the JAES.
>>>
>>>> Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
>>>> surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
>>>> dare say has very few participants who are members of
>>>> the JAES.
>>>
>>> The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have
>>> access to AES papers. For years I relied on a local
>>> library's JAES collection. In fact I haven't been an AES
>>> member for over 20 years.
>
>> That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's
>> this obscure, the onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with
>> the information.
>
> There's nothing obscure about the AES Journal review process. It is
> described in this document:
>
> JAES Volume 57 Issue 1/2 pp. 3-4; January 2009 . The author is John
> Vanderkooy.
>
>

Thatnk you Arny. That's better. Now, the January 2009 issue can be found
where?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:34:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:29:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 07:34:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with the
>>>>>> protocols that are used to qualify papers that are
>>>>>> published in the JAES.
>>>>
>>>>> Since I'm not a member of JAES, It shouldn't be
>>>>> surprising. However, you are addressing a forum that I
>>>>> dare say has very few participants who are members of
>>>>> the JAES.
>>>>
>>>> The fallacy here is the idea that only AES members have
>>>> access to AES papers. For years I relied on a local
>>>> library's JAES collection. In fact I haven't been an
>>>> AES member for over 20 years.
>>
>>> That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's
>>> this obscure, the onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with
>>> the information.
>>
>> There's nothing obscure about the AES Journal review
>> process. It is described in this document:
>>
>> JAES Volume 57 Issue 1/2 pp. 3-4; January 2009 . The
>> author is John Vanderkooy.

> Thatnk you Arny. That's better. Now, the January 2009
> issue can be found where?

Order the article from the AES web site!

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:34:07 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 5, 12:47=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>
>> That doesn't matter. When you bring up something that's this obscure, the
>> onus is on YOU to be forthcoming with the information. 30 years ago I, to=
> o,
>> was an AES member, but I certainly don't know what the protocols for
>> screening JAES papers for publication are. I still say no one here except=
> you
>> and possibly one or two other posters here who know that.
>
> Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not even an engineer, and have never
> worked in the audio field in any capacity. And even I know the JAES is
> a peer-reviewed journal. Wake up.
>
> bob
>

For crying out loud indeed! I KNOW the JAES is a peer-reviewed journal, what
I don't know (and I'll bet money that you don't know either) is what the
protocols are for that peer review. THAT was the issue, not whether or not
the journal IS peer reviewed. I think that if Arny is going to criticize
someone who doesn't know the peer review protocols for a journal that is not
easily available to everyone here, then he needs to supply them. Personally,
I don't care what they are, but if you mention something like that, be
prepared to supply the info, or at least where the info can be accessed.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:23:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Andrew Haley" > wrote
>>> in
>>> message
>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. I've tried to restore a number of pieces of
>>>>>> vintage gear, including a Citation One preamp. I was
>>>>>> told by everybody that these multi-section caps aren't
>>>>>> available any more. Do you have a source?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and conceal
>>>>> a collection of modern capacitors inside of it.
>>>>> Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is generally
>>>>> very easy to do, and results in an equal-or-better end
>>>>> product. For example one of my friends did this with a
>>>>> pair of MacIntosh 75 watt tubed amps.
>>>>
>>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
>>>> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
>>>> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
>>>> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't available?
>>>
>>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not usually
>>> hooked together directly. For example one section might
>>> be hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube, the
>>> second to the output of a filter choke, and the third to
>>> a resistor that is part of a decoupling network for a
>>> phono preamp.
>
>> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi" network
>> power supply filter with a choke or resistor between the
>> two sections.
>
> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and "....he
> second to the output of a filter choke...", per my post above.
>

Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say "pi" network?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
[...discussion of what is the goal of discussion and similar matters
snipped...]
>> There is nothing that supports yours. But
>> not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
>> peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
>> principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can be
>> applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
>> differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
>> former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
>> speak.
>
> You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
> corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
> transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
> about such claims.

see below...


[...irreleveant discussion about counting papers snipped..]
>>>> And just
>>>> because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make
>>>> it right.
>>> That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence" on
>>> one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?
>> There isn't.
>
> Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one does
> not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
> science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
> The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
> plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
> the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
> support the assertion of amplifier transparency.
>
>
>> But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
>> understand.
>
> Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't there
> the claim of scientific support is bogus.

The science is there. But denial is not a river in Egypt. :)

>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>> Greek letter omega.
>
> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.

It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
detectability, etc).

Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devices.

If distortion is 20dB below hearing thresholds, amplitude variations over
frequency range are 10 times below thresholds, noise is 40dB below
thresholds, phase is 100 times more flatter that hearing thresholds
require, impulse response is below -60dB after 10us, then nonhearability
of differences between such devices is straightforward scientific
conclusion. It's so straightforward it does not require any more scrutiny
like separate studies.
It's like an inability of pigs to fly is straightforward conclusion coming
from physics and animal physiology. Proposing scientific study to check
if, maybe, pigs could fly would be a joke, right?


> I get the feeling
> you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm

Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.


>>>> As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
>>>> the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
>>>> the measured performance of audio gear.
>>> And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
>>> reviewed published studies.
>> What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
>> a search function, too.
>
> Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
> find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
> your burden of proof. I ask knowing there is nothing to support your
> assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things like
long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
flat. It simply is not flat, .


>>>> The DBTs that have been done,
>>>> either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
>>>> science.
>>> What science? Show me the actual science, please.
>> If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)
>
> The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.

It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.


> Feel free to prove
> me wrong.

There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn't
there"...


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
> > to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
> > context of the variable under test.
>
> Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
> That
> you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
> technical
> gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
> post, is a true wonder!

Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
standard!

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:23:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Andrew Haley" > wrote
>>>> in
>>>> message
>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:

>>>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and
>>>>>> conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of
>>>>>> it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
>>>>>> generally very easy to do, and results in an
>>>>>> equal-or-better end product. For example one of my
>>>>>> friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
>>>>>> tubed amps.
>>>
>>>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
>>>>> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
>>>>> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
>>>>> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't
>>>>> available?
>>>>
>>>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not
>>>> usually hooked together directly. For example one
>>>> section might be hooked to the cathode of the
>>>> rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter
>>>> choke, and the third to a resistor that is part of a
>>>> decoupling network for a phono preamp.
>>
>>> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi" network
>>> power supply filter with a choke or resistor between the
>>> two sections.
>>
>> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
>> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and
>> "....he second to the output of a filter choke...", per
>> my post above.
>>
>
> Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say "pi"
> network?

"Pi network" is jargon.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" > wrote in message


> Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test
> conducted in someone's living room is too unfamiliar to
> be reliable. But a positive listening test conducted in
> an MRI tube, well, that's the gold standard!

If you want to have an idea about what a listening test conducted in a MRI
would be like, please check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oI9YnhPNcQ

What the video can't do is give you an idea of how loud the irritating
buzzing sound actually is.

The noise level is dependent on the type of scan being conducted.

Here are some typical sound levels from the abstract of a scientific paper
about the topic:

MP-RAGE; 113 dB SPL linear,
fast gradient echo turbo (114 dB SPL linear),
spin echo T1/2 mm (117 dB SPL linear)

So there you go - if you want to hear the effects of > 20 KHz highs, just do
your test while listening to a buzzer blasting in your ear at 113 dB to 117
dB.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 4/5/2011 7:28 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
>> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and "....he
>> second to the output of a filter choke...", per my post above.
>>
>
> Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say "pi" network?
>

Because in context, the circuit describe is NOT a pi
network: it's a voltage divider with filtration at
each tap. A pi network (which is simply a convenient,
informal handle because the topology suggests the
lower-case Greek letter "pi") is a two-port circuit,
the voltage divider described is more than two ports,
given that it has taps in it.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:57:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:23:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Andrew Haley" > wrote
>>>>> in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and
>>>>>>> conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of
>>>>>>> it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
>>>>>>> generally very easy to do, and results in an
>>>>>>> equal-or-better end product. For example one of my
>>>>>>> friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
>>>>>>> tubed amps.
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point of
>>>>>> replacing a multi-section cap with another one? Can't
>>>>>> you just put a single- section cap in its place, or is
>>>>>> the problem that the values/ voltages aren't
>>>>>> available?
>>>>>
>>>>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not
>>>>> usually hooked together directly. For example one
>>>>> section might be hooked to the cathode of the
>>>>> rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter
>>>>> choke, and the third to a resistor that is part of a
>>>>> decoupling network for a phono preamp.
>>>
>>>> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi" network
>>>> power supply filter with a choke or resistor between the
>>>> two sections.
>>>
>>> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
>>> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and
>>> "....he second to the output of a filter choke...", per
>>> my post above.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say "pi"
>> network?
>
> "Pi network" is jargon.

......That everybody with even a passing knowledge of electronics knows.
Including those with EE degrees 8^)

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:57:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:23:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Andrew Haley" >
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and
>>>>>>>> conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of
>>>>>>>> it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
>>>>>>>> generally very easy to do, and results in an
>>>>>>>> equal-or-better end product. For example one of my
>>>>>>>> friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
>>>>>>>> tubed amps.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point
>>>>>>> of replacing a multi-section cap with another one?
>>>>>>> Can't you just put a single- section cap in its
>>>>>>> place, or is the problem that the values/ voltages
>>>>>>> aren't available?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not
>>>>>> usually hooked together directly. For example one
>>>>>> section might be hooked to the cathode of the
>>>>>> rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter
>>>>>> choke, and the third to a resistor that is part of a
>>>>>> decoupling network for a phono preamp.
>>>>
>>>>> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi"
>>>>> network power supply filter with a choke or resistor
>>>>> between the two sections.
>>>>
>>>> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
>>>> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and
>>>> "....he second to the output of a filter choke...", per
>>>> my post above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say
>>> "pi" network?
>>
>> "Pi network" is jargon.
>
> .....That everybody with even a passing knowledge of
> electronics knows. Including those with EE degrees 8^)

I think its really a ham thing.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
> > to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
> > context of the variable under test.
>
> Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
> That
> you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
> technical
> gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
> post, is a true wonder!

>Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
>someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
>listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
>standard!

I can't let this piece of fabrication stand. Either you are deliberately
distorting the facts for effect, or you learned or remembered little from
the test.

The listening test was not done anywere near an MRI. A special room was set
up with an easy chair, soft lighting, plants, and a window wall looking out
at a peaceful scene. No equipment was in evidence. Music was played...in
ABBA order (order known to subject, but not assignment of variables.....also
not known to scientists conducting test....thus double blind). After the
music ended, the subject was asked to RATE THE MUSIC provided by A and then
B on a scale, using normal musical attributes. After a brief rest of about
10 minutes (a palate-cleansing, if you will), the test was repeated. Order
bias was controlled blindly and randomly, as mentioned. The test was
repeated several time among each of seventeen subjects.....who were music
lovers whatever their professions. The variables: a CD recording of
Gamelon music lasting 3 mins 20 secs, in one case played with the standard
CD cutoff frequency of 22khz, and in the other played with a separate
"super-tweeter" added (but electronically separated and amplified) that
reproduced the ultrasonic frequencies of the Gamelon above 26khz.
Statistical analysis showed that the sound quality was rated higher when the
ultrasonic frequencies were present. During this whole proceeding the
subjects did not know what was being tested.

The test you are disparaging did not involve an MRI tube and nothing to do
with listening evaluation. It was a separate test that involved EEG and PET
scans of the same 17 subjects in the same room. It was a completely
different test, and all the respondents were asked to do was stay
awake...the data being sought was generated by their bodies and recorded by
the lab equipment. The were then exposed to four test conditions at random,
and then in reverse order. These were a different set of Gamelon music of
approximately the same 3min length, once with and once without ultrasonic
sound present, another a 3min period of silence, and yet another three
minutes with only the ultrahigh frequencies playing (silent to the
subjects). The test monitoring recorded the test subjects physiological
reactions to the four stimuli, which were tested in random order and then
reverse order, and after a short break, repeated several more times with
order randomized. The result of this test was that the music selection
activated the portions of the brain active in listening to music, with the
ultrasonic-added variable eliciting more response, especially in the
pleasure-centers of the brain. Whereas the ultrasonic-only portion of the
recording, divorced from the audible sound, meant nothing and elicited no
response as did the silence variable. Again, these were statistically
significant results.

So....the results of the study. The addition of ultrasonics led to greater
listening pleasure as experienced and recorded by the respondents, and as
mesured by the lab equipment independent of the respondents control. And
notice this was without any direct comparison or choice to disrupt
concentration on listening during the test itself, in either of the two
tests.

The scientists noted two important things, in their opinion. One was the
creation of a relaxed listening environment that duplicated to some degree
the ideal home listening environment. The other was the use of musical
excerpts that lasted a bit longer than three minutes and more time between
musical excerpts than normally used. They explicitly stated that they felt
the 20 second snippets of music used in the testing done for Sony twenty
years earlier was a possible major flaw in the work that established the
22khz CD cutoff (in which case it is also a flaw in most ABX testing, as is
the quick switching). This latter conclusion was based on preliminary work
with the EGG system wherein they determined that there was a substantial
"ramp up" and "ramp down" in brain activity after the start and stop of
musical selections, suggesting that short musical excerpts and
quick-switching both had the potential to distort the musical experience.

I'm going to this length because it is obvious that Arny and Bob are once
again trying to disparage the test, as they did when I presented the results
several years ago. For newcomers to the thread I think it is important to
set the record straight. For anybody who wants to read the entire article,
it is here: http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 7:40 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>> Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
>> differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and
>> even
>> the ABC/hr test have proven better at. Yet ABX is the test that Arny
>> developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

>This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
>science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
>takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
>hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
>sounds--without a shred of evidence.

>In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
>psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
>training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
>reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

>The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
>to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
>changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
>for objective listening tests of any kind.

>> If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal
>> evaluative
>> process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
>> results. One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor
>> is
>> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
>> variable under test.

>Again, Harry takes it upon himself to invent science. There is no
>evidence that ABX tests are less sensitive to anything than other
>double-blind tests. Quite the contrary--it's pretty easy to design a
>test that's less sensitive than an ABX test.

Did I say anything about DBT's in general? The Oohashi test I mention is a
double-blind test, and as you well know, Bob, I used double-blind testing
for years in the food industry.

Re-read the first paragraph cited above....I specifically reference ABX and
to a lesser degree ABC/hr. ABX was the technique Arny claims to have
invented and which is most often cited in support of "null" results.

[bob]

On Apr 6, 2:55=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> The scientists noted two important things, in their opinion. =A0One was t=
he
> creation of a relaxed listening environment that duplicated to some degre=
e
> the ideal home listening environment. =A0The other was the use of musical
> excerpts that lasted a bit longer than three minutes and more time betwee=
n
> musical excerpts than normally used. =A0 They explicitly stated that they=
felt
> the 20 second snippets of music used in the testing done for Sony twenty
> years earlier was a possible major flaw in the work that established the
> 22khz CD cutoff (in which case it is also a flaw in most ABX testing, as =
is
> the quick switching). =A0This latter conclusion was based on preliminary =
work
> with the EGG system wherein they determined that there was a substantial
> "ramp up" and "ramp down" in brain activity after the start and stop of
> musical selections, suggesting that short musical excerpts and
> quick-switching both had the potential to distort the musical experience.

But Oohashi et al were wrong about this, as we now know. People
attempting to replicate their test have found that conventional DBTs
do detect differences with and without the mystical "hyypersonic
effect." So any claim that the Oohashi approach is better is
falsified. (Also, as a side note, it appears that what people were
hearing was actually IM distortion within the audible band, so they
were wrong about that, too..)

bob

[bob]

On Apr 6, 4:19=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that conclude this. =A0So far as I =
have
> been able to determine, none have been done.

AES Paper #5401:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3D10005

The abstract:

"To investigate audibility of ultrasounds contained in a complex tone,
psychoacoustic experiments were designed. Human subjects were required
to discriminate stimuli with and without components above 22 kHz. All
subjects distinguished between sounds with and without ultrasounds
only when the stimulus was presented through a single loudspeaker.
When the stimulus was divided into six bands of frequencies and
presented through 6 loudspeakers in order to reduce intermodulation
distortions, no subject could detect any ultrasounds. It was concluded
that addition of ultrasounds might affect sound impression by means of
some non-linear interaction that might occur in the loudspeakers."

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 4:19 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that conclude this. So far as I have
> been able to determine, none have been done.

>AES Paper #5401:
>http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10005

>The abstract:

>"To investigate audibility of ultrasounds contained in a complex tone,
>psychoacoustic experiments were designed. Human subjects were required
>to discriminate stimuli with and without components above 22 kHz. All
>subjects distinguished between sounds with and without ultrasounds
>only when the stimulus was presented through a single loudspeaker.
>When the stimulus was divided into six bands of frequencies and
>presented through 6 loudspeakers in order to reduce intermodulation
>distortions, no subject could detect any ultrasounds. It was concluded
>that addition of ultrasounds might affect sound impression by means of
>some non-linear interaction that might occur in the loudspeakers."

I have ordered the paper.....

Notice I said "paper". This is a paper presented at the AES convention of
2001. The convention papers ARE NOT peer reviewed. Has it ever appeared as
a peer-reviewed article? The majority of convention papers never make it
that far.

You also cite the abstract, which is all that is available online without
membership... I left my AES membership lapse about 2005. There is nothing
about the listening or equipement setup, the music chosen, nature of the
subjects, size and statistical makeup of the test, or any of the other
crucial factors comprising a "test". The abstract doesn't even mention
whether or not the test was single or double blind, or even a blind test for
that matter.

And of course, they didn't duplicate the Oohashi experiment. The Oohashi
team actually had anticipated this problem and provided two separate speaker
systems, one conventional multi-speaker covering the audible range and a
seperate speaker covering the supersonic range. And it was fed by
specially-built equipment that divided the bandwidth and could play the two
frequency ranges simultaneously or independently. Thus in the Oohashi
experiment the signal was provided as cleanly as possible.....and still the
effect was audible and measureable. The Oohashi team did choose music
specifically rich in overtones for their test. We have no idea of what
music was used in the AES-paper test at this point.

Until the paper arrives and I have a chance to digest it carefully, I will
reserve judgement. I would suggest you do the same....what you have cited
is interesting but it is not proof of anything, and certainly does not
"debunk the claim" as you claim. Nor is it a peer-reviewed test, much less
a published one.....which is what I asked you to provide.

[bob]

On Apr 6, 7:45=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> Until the paper arrives and I have a chance to digest it carefully, I wil=
l
> reserve judgement.

Except for the 3 paragraphs of ill-informed judgment you've just
rendered. None of which should or need be taken seriously.

> =A0I would suggest you do the same

I read it years ago. I would never make the kind of grand claims for
it--or for any single paper--that you made for Oohashi. But it clearly
demonstrates that the apparently misnamed hypersonic effect can be
detected by conventional DBTs. If nothing else, this leaves you
without a credible example of an audible difference that such DBTs
cannot detect.

bob

[dave a]

On 4/6/2011 11:55 AM, Harry Lavo wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Apr 2, 9:28 am, "Arny > wrote:
>> "Harry > wrote in message
>>
>>> One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
>>> to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
>>> context of the variable under test.
>>
>> Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX.
>> That
>> you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the
>> technical
>> gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
>> post, is a true wonder!
>
>> Yeah, the standard seems to be that an negative ABX test conducted in
>> someone's living room is too unfamiliar to be reliable. But a positive
>> listening test conducted in an MRI tube, well, that's the gold
>> standard!
>
> I can't let this piece of fabrication stand. Either you are deliberately
> distorting the facts for effect, or you learned or remembered little from
> the test.
>
> The listening test was not done anywere near an MRI.

Just a side note, PET scans are done by injecting a radioactive isotope
into your blood stream and then going into a scanning machine very much
like a CAT scan machine. I know because I've had a PET scan. Trust me,
you don't want one and it isn't a very good listening environment.

[bob]

Oops, I've got to eat a little crow here. The paper I cited
demonstrates that the "hypersonic" effect Oohashi claimed to have
discovered could have been caused by distortion within the audible
band. But I'd forgotten that they were using test tones, not music, in
that one, so I can hardly use it to refute Harry's claim that ABX-type
tests are sometimes not sensitive when listening to music.

This paper, Print #6298:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12955

....does use music, and interestingly, finds that longer listening
times work may indeed work better--a couple of subjects were able to
detect a difference when given two-minute passages to compare. But
they succeed at that using a simple same-different test, similar to
conventional DBTs. (ABX is really just two same-different tests
conducted simultaneously.) So it challenges another claim Harry has
made in the past--about monadic vs. comparative tests--but not the
specific point Harry raised earlier in this thread about the length of
presentation.

Lest anyone think there's a lot of relevance to the general question
of the validity of ABX and similar tests here, we should remember that
length of presentation appears to matter *only* when there is a great
deal of hypersonic content to the music being heard. And as of now we
have no theory to explain how that content reaches the brain. What we
know about the ear suggests that it is a very unlikely route. Absent
that content (which probably does not exist on any commercially
released musical recordings and could not be reproduced adequately on
standard home audio systems), there is no evidence that conventional
DBTs are incapable of identifying differences when they are audible.

Sorry for the confusion. Now I know I can't rely on my memory like I
used to!

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> And of course, they didn't duplicate the Oohashi
> experiment. The Oohashi team actually had anticipated
> this problem and provided two separate speaker systems,
> one conventional multi-speaker covering the audible range
> and a seperate speaker covering the supersonic range.

You obviously missed the point of paper 5401 which was that while Oohashi
tried to address the well-known and potentially severe problem of nonlinear
distortion in speakers, they didn't go far enough.

> And it was fed by specially-built equipment that divided
> the bandwidth and could play the two frequency ranges
> simultaneously or independently. Thus in the Oohashi
> experiment the signal was provided as cleanly as
> possible..

False claim. Oohashi divided the spectrum 2 ways, while Kiryu, Shogo;
Ashihara, Kaoru split it 6 ways in paper 5401. That's right in the online
abstract of paper 5401, that was right on the screen when you ordered it, so
I can't imagine how you missed it or underestimated its significance.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message


> My first impression of such discussion is that the
> filters used to develop these filtered and "separated"
> (which is still a process of filtering) sources needs to
> be evaluated and may very well be the real cause for
> differences in perception rather than the presence or
> absence of HF content.

The big difference between Oohashi and paper 5401 is that the authors of
5401 went a large step further and divided the spectrum up into 6 paths as
opposed to 2.

> The issues with early implementations of analog
> anti-alias filters have long been largely resolved.

Irrelevant, it seems. Anti-alias filters are used with ADCs and not used
with DACs. The low pass filters in DACs are there to eliminate spurious high
frequency signals that might cause IM on down the signal chain.

> I would be interested to hear more of how these two signals
> were carefully processed to assure the only difference
> was high freq content.

The difference was how many ways and where the signals were split into
different frequency bands. Electronics are so linear, and speakers are so
nonlinear that the exact details of the electronic splitting is probably not
all that important.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" > wrote in message


> Lest anyone think there's a lot of relevance to the
> general question of the validity of ABX and similar tests
> here, we should remember that length of presentation
> appears to matter *only* when there is a great deal of
> hypersonic content to the music being heard.

Furthermore, 2 minute listening sessions are not exactly what I'd call long
term.

There are so many questions and failures to replicate related to the
Oohashi paper that it is probably best set aside as an interesting
curiosity.

It is probably not a coincidence that Oohashi's year 2000 paper was designed
to support the exceptional claims that were made to justify SACD and DVD-A
as the next major advance in digital audio. It's 11 years later and SACD and
DVD-A have both totally failed in the mainstream marketplace. We also have
far more recent highly replicable and peer-reviewed tests that explain why.
SACD and DVD-A weren't effective advancements in audio technology, and that
is that. Psychoacoustics and practical considerations such as the
attenuation of high frequencies by the air strongly advise against them.
Their benefits were ascribed to recordings that were made from 48 KHz
sampled digital recordings that didn't even contain significant > 20 KHz
information, but only as a consequence of sightted evaluations.

[bob]

On Apr 7, 8:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> There are so many questions and failures to replicate related to =A0the
> Oohashi paper that it is probably best set aside as an interesting
> curiosity.

Well, the 2004 NHK paper I cited seems to confirm that something is
going on there. But all we have at this point is an odd phenomenon
that we can't explain yet. That's how science progresses. You find
something you cant explain, and you go looking for an explanation.

More often than not, however, the explanation is something entirely
prosaic and already known. Which is why it's way too soon to be
declaring that these few experiments have any real implications for
audio reproduction.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:21:22 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:57:13 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:23:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Andrew Haley" >
>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a rule people gut the old capacitor case and
>>>>>>>>> conceal a collection of modern capacitors inside of
>>>>>>>>> it. Capacitors have shrunk enough that this is
>>>>>>>>> generally very easy to do, and results in an
>>>>>>>>> equal-or-better end product. For example one of my
>>>>>>>>> friends did this with a pair of MacIntosh 75 watt
>>>>>>>>> tubed amps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm finding this quite baffling. What is the point
>>>>>>>> of replacing a multi-section cap with another one?
>>>>>>>> Can't you just put a single- section cap in its
>>>>>>>> place, or is the problem that the values/ voltages
>>>>>>>> aren't available?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sections of multi-section capacitors are not
>>>>>>> usually hooked together directly. For example one
>>>>>>> section might be hooked to the cathode of the
>>>>>>> rectifier tube, the second to the output of a filter
>>>>>>> choke, and the third to a resistor that is part of a
>>>>>>> decoupling network for a phono preamp.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or it might constitute both capacitors in a "pi"
>>>>>> network power supply filter with a choke or resistor
>>>>>> between the two sections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this is what you have if "...one section (is)
>>>>> hooked to the cathode of the rectifier tube..." and
>>>>> "....he second to the output of a filter choke...", per
>>>>> my post above.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, hard to follow though. Why did you not just say
>>>> "pi" network?
>>>
>>> "Pi network" is jargon.
>>
>> .....That everybody with even a passing knowledge of
>> electronics knows. Including those with EE degrees 8^)
>
> I think its really a ham thing.

You know, you could be right about that. Several of my electronics professors
in college WERE hams (as was I as a teen) But, as Mr. Pierce pointed out,
your description wasn't the same as a "pi" filter anyway. I mentioned "pi"
filter in my addendum to your post on the subject because I didn't recognize
your description as being the same as a pi filter. I don't have your OP any
more, having deleted it. So, I really can't say for sure whether you were
wrong or whether I just misread or misunderstood what you wrote. Either is
possible. 8^)

[Harry Lavo]

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
>>On Apr 6, 11:55 am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>

>snip for brevity<

>> The listening test was not done anywere near an MRI. A special room was
>> set
>> up with an easy chair, soft lighting, plants, and a window wall looking
>> out
>> at a peaceful scene. No equipment was in evidence. Music was played...in
>> ABBA order (order known to subject, but not assignment of
>> variables.....also
>> not known to scientists conducting test....thus double blind). After the
>> music ended, the subject was asked to RATE THE MUSIC provided by A and
>> then
>> B on a scale, using normal musical attributes. After a brief rest of
>> about
>> 10 minutes (a palate-cleansing, if you will), the test was repeated.
>> Order
>> bias was controlled blindly and randomly, as mentioned. The test was
>> repeated several time among each of seventeen subjects.....who were music
>> lovers whatever their professions. The variables: a CD recording of
>> Gamelon music lasting 3 mins 20 secs, in one case played with the
>> standard
>> CD cutoff frequency of 22khz, and in the other played with a separate
>> "super-tweeter" added (but electronically separated and amplified) that
>> reproduced the ultrasonic frequencies of the Gamelon above 26khz.
>> Statistical analysis showed that the sound quality was rated higher when
>> the
>> ultrasonic frequencies were present. During this whole proceeding the
>> subjects did not know what was being tested.

>My first impression of such discussion is that the filters used to
>develop these filtered and "separated" (which is still a process of
>filtering) sources needs to be evaluated and may very well be the real
>cause for differences in perception rather than the presence or
>absence of HF content.

>The issues with early implementations of analog anti-alias filters
>have long been largely resolved. I would be interested to hear more
>of how these two signals were carefully processed to assure the only
>difference was high freq content.

Scott, the Oohashi article goes into lots of detail re: the equipment and
the filters used. You might find it interesting...

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> And of course, they didn't duplicate the Oohashi
>> experiment. The Oohashi team actually had anticipated
>> this problem and provided two separate speaker systems,
>> one conventional multi-speaker covering the audible range
>> and a seperate speaker covering the supersonic range.
>
> You obviously missed the point of paper 5401 which was that while Oohashi
> tried to address the well-known and potentially severe problem of
> nonlinear
> distortion in speakers, they didn't go far enough.

Your conclusion. Not based in any way on "fact" at this point. (see below)

>> And it was fed by specially-built equipment that divided
>> the bandwidth and could play the two frequency ranges
>> simultaneously or independently. Thus in the Oohashi
>> experiment the signal was provided as cleanly as
>> possible..
>
> False claim. Oohashi divided the spectrum 2 ways, while Kiryu, Shogo;
> Ashihara, Kaoru split it 6 ways in paper 5401. That's right in the online
> abstract of paper 5401, that was right on the screen when you ordered it,
> so
> I can't imagine how you missed it or underestimated its significance.
>

The fact is, that without the careful descriptions included in the Oohashi
paper, the "paper" test is simply a non-starter in proving anything. And if
the test, as I read it, meant people could not perceive the ultrasonics, and
they were using test signals as Bob says, then it no way contradicts
Oohashi. You may remember that Oohashi found the ultrasonics only
stimulated the brain when they were part of a MUSICAL signal, not a divorced
"sound" which would be very similar to a test signal. That could well be a
function of how the brain works and have very much to do with the validity
of the later test....remember my comment about intervening but
ill-considered variables.

[Harry Lavo]

>"bob" > wrote in message
...
> Oops, I've got to eat a little crow here. The paper I cited
> demonstrates that the "hypersonic" effect Oohashi claimed to have
> discovered could have been caused by distortion within the audible
> band. But I'd forgotten that they were using test tones, not music, in
> that one, so I can hardly use it to refute Harry's claim that ABX-type
> tests are sometimes not sensitive when listening to music.
>
> This paper, Print #6298:
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12955
>
> ...does use music, and interestingly, finds that longer listening
> times work may indeed work better--a couple of subjects were able to
> detect a difference when given two-minute passages to compare. But
> they succeed at that using a simple same-different test, similar to
> conventional DBTs. (ABX is really just two same-different tests
> conducted simultaneously.) So it challenges another claim Harry has
> made in the past--about monadic vs. comparative tests--but not the
> specific point Harry raised earlier in this thread about the length of
> presentation.
>
> Lest anyone think there's a lot of relevance to the general question
> of the validity of ABX and similar tests here, we should remember that
> length of presentation appears to matter *only* when there is a great
> deal of hypersonic content to the music being heard. And as of now we
> have no theory to explain how that content reaches the brain. What we
> know about the ear suggests that it is a very unlikely route. Absent
> that content (which probably does not exist on any commercially
> released musical recordings and could not be reproduced adequately on
> standard home audio systems), there is no evidence that conventional
> DBTs are incapable of identifying differences when they are audible.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. Now I know I can't rely on my memory like I
> used to!
>

Bob, thank you for your honesty in acknowledging your mistake and assessing
the meaning.

However, I think you may be wrong about the timing affecting only
hypersonic content. As I recall, the work they did on the intervals of
build-up and decay of brain activity related to Gamelon music, but not
necessarily with ultrasonic content switched in. They did this work before
they actually designed the test, in order to determine how long the segments
should be and how much space to leave between....but whether or not they
did it with the ultrasonics switched in I simply can't remember.

I do find it ironic that this test...substantially funded, involving a team
of nine scientists and technicians, carefully planned and executed over
time, with pre-testing of certain fundamentals done rather than relying on
assumptions, is the very model of a double-blind test, and one where the
audible effects are confirmed by brain measurements. And yet this test in
its design and execution is a far, far cry from the conditions usually
established for normal ABX-style testing. The test managed to be sensitive
to small supposedly inaudible differences, and it did it while using long
segments, not using quick switches in the comparative sense, and using
non-intrusive after the fact indirect scale ratings. It hews closer to the
kind of test those of us who criticize ABX feel should be done in a validity
test, to determine if under these different conditions audiophiles might be
able to detect longer-term differences that simply are lost in a lack of
context within the typical ABX-style comparative test.

[bob]

On Apr 8, 10:06=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> However, I think you may be wrong about the timing =A0affecting only
> hypersonic content. =A0As I recall, the work they did on the intervals of
> build-up and decay of brain activity related to Gamelon music, but not
> necessarily with ultrasonic content switched in. =A0They did this work be=
fore
> they actually designed the test, in order to determine how long the segme=
nts
> should be =A0and how much space to leave between....but whether or not th=
ey
> did it with the ultrasonics switched in I simply can't remember.

I thought the whole point of the study was that the delayed brain
reaction took place *only* when the ultrasonic content was included.
That would indicate that there is no advantage to longer listening
times when standard recording techniques are used.

> I do find it ironic that this test...substantially funded, involving a te=
am
> of nine scientists and technicians, carefully planned and executed over
> time, with pre-testing of certain fundamentals done rather than relying o=
n
> assumptions, is the very model of a double-blind test, and one where the
> audible effects are confirmed by brain measurements. =A0And yet this test=
in
> its design and execution is a far, far cry from the conditions usually
> established for normal ABX-style testing. =A0The test managed to be sensi=
tive
> to small supposedly inaudible differences, and it did it while using long
> segments, not using quick switches in the comparative sense, and using
> non-intrusive after the fact indirect scale ratings. =A0It hews closer to=
the
> kind of test those of us who criticize ABX feel should be done in a valid=
ity
> test, to determine if under these different conditions audiophiles might =
be
> able to detect longer-term differences that simply are lost in a lack of
> context within the typical ABX-style comparative test.

As usual, you are grossly over-interpreting this article. The only
thing they found was that there is some physiological reaction to the
presence of ultrasonic content in a musical presentation. They
couldn't even explain how that information reached the brain. To
conclude from that anything about the validity of listening tests
involving commercially available recordings, none of which are likely
to have sufficient ultrasonic content, is a misreading and a
distortion of science.

bob

[bob]

On Apr 8, 10:05=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> The fact is, that without the careful descriptions included in the Oohash=
i
> paper, the "paper" test is simply a non-starter in proving anything. =A0A=
nd if
> the test, as I read it, meant people could not perceive the ultrasonics, =
and
> they were using test signals as Bob says, then it no way contradicts
> Oohashi. =A0

Oh, but it does raise the very serious question of whether there was,
in the Oohashi test, some distortion in the audio band.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" > wrote in message
...
>On Apr 8, 10:06 am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

[BTW, internet courtesy requires that you indicate where/when you snip
content, as you have here.]

>> However, I think you may be wrong about the timing affecting only
>> hypersonic content. As I recall, the work they did on the intervals of
>> build-up and decay of brain activity related to Gamelon music, but not
>> necessarily with ultrasonic content switched in. They did this work
>> before
>> they actually designed the test, in order to determine how long the
>> segments
>> should be and how much space to leave between....but whether or not they
>>did it with the ultrasonics switched in I simply can't remember.

>I thought the whole point of the study was that the delayed brain
>reaction took place *only* when the ultrasonic content was included.
>That would indicate that there is no advantage to longer listening
>times when standard recording techniques are used.

Not at all. That "finding" was determined in the preliminary work leading
up to the test.

>> I do find it ironic that this test...substantially funded, involving a
>> team
>> of nine scientists and technicians, carefully planned and executed over
>> time, with pre-testing of certain fundamentals done rather than relying
>> on
>> assumptions, is the very model of a double-blind test, and one where the
>> audible effects are confirmed by brain measurements. And yet this test in
>> its design and execution is a far, far cry from the conditions usually
>> established for normal ABX-style testing. The test managed to be
>> sensitive
>> to small supposedly inaudible differences, and it did it while using long
>> segments, not using quick switches in the comparative sense, and using
>> non-intrusive after the fact indirect scale ratings. It hews closer to
>> the
>> kind of test those of us who criticize ABX feel should be done in a
>> validity
>> test, to determine if under these different conditions audiophiles might
>> be
>>able to detect longer-term differences that simply are lost in a lack of
>> context within the typical ABX-style comparative test.

>As usual, you are grossly over-interpreting this article. The only
>thing they found was that there is some physiological reaction to the
>presence of ultrasonic content in a musical presentation. They
>couldn't even explain how that information reached the brain. To
>conclude from that anything about the validity of listening tests
>involving commercially available recordings, none of which are likely
>to have sufficient ultrasonic content, is a misreading and a
>distortion of science.

Why do you have so much difficulty separating the elegance of test design
from the specifics of the results. They were testing musical stimuli, and
they found statistically significant results from subtle stimuli using a
radically different but rigorous double blind test. The test design was the
reason I brought Oohashi into this conversation.....in response to Arny's
assertion that no such valid DBT design existed that had been peer-reviewed
and published.

So far as I'm concerned, the discussion should end here.

[bob]

On Apr 9, 10:04=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "bob" > wrote in message

> >I thought the whole point of the study was that the delayed brain
> >reaction took place *only* when the ultrasonic content was included.
> >That would indicate that there is no advantage to longer listening
> >times when standard recording techniques are used.
>
> Not at all. =A0That "finding" was determined in the preliminary work lead=
ing
> up to the test.

Go back and read the article, Harry. It clearly states that there was
no delayed brain reaction *except* when the ultrasonic content was
presented. Which means that this study provides *no* basis for
assuming that long presentations are necessary for listening tests,
unless there is sufficient ultrasonic content to trigger the
"hypersonic effect," whatever that is. And given the extraordinary
efforts both the Oohashi team and the NHK team had to go through to
produce material with sufficient ultrasonic content, it's safe to
assume that long listening periods are almost never necessary.

<snip>

> Why do you have so much difficulty separating the elegance of test design
> from the specifics of the results.

I don't think it's a particularly elegant test. I think it's a really
bad test that happened to produce a positive result in this case, but
would inevitably produce negative results in many other cases where
audible differences are in fact present. I seriously doubt this test
could pass peer review in a psychoacoustics journal, and I am
absolutely certain it wouldn't pass if it produced a negative result.

The only reason to believe this test is "elegant" is if you like the
result it produced in this case.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 6, 4:56=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
> >> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
>
> [...discussion of what is the goal of discussion and similar matters
> snipped...]
> =A0>> There is nothing that supports yours. But
> =A0>> not everything we know to be true has been published directly in a
> =A0>> peer-reviewed journal. Science is about establishing general
> =A0>> principles--like the limits of human hearing perception--that can b=
e
> =A0>> applied to more specific questions, such as the audibility of
> =A0>> differences between audio components. Real scientists focus on the
> =A0>> former. Questions such as the latter are left for the reader, so to
> =A0>> speak.
> =A0>
> =A0> You haven't shown any scientifially valid evidence showing a
> =A0> corolation between established thresholds of human hearing and
> =A0> transparency of amplifiers. Real scientists don't make assumptions
> =A0> about such claims.
>
> see below...
>
> [...irreleveant discussion about counting papers snipped..]
> =A0>>>> And just
> =A0>>>> because something makes it into a peer-reviewed journal doesn't m=
ake
> =A0>>>> it right.
> =A0>>> That is very true. So what does that say of the "body of evidence"=
on
> =A0>>> one subject when there is just one peer reviewed paper?
> =A0>> There isn't.
> =A0>
> =A0> Bingo. So the claim that one is scientifically illiterate if one doe=
s
> =A0> not buy into amplifier transparecy is a bogus one. The claim that
> =A0> science supports the belief in amplifier transparecy is a bogus one.
> =A0> The flag waving about the scientific validity of that position is
> =A0> plainly bogus. Thank you for finally acknowledging the dead moose in
> =A0> the middle of the objectivists' room. The science isn't there to
> =A0> support the assertion of amplifier transparency.
> =A0>
> =A0>
> =A0>> But I can't help you understand if you don't want to
> =A0>> understand.
> =A0>
> =A0> Apparently I can't help you understand that if the science isn't the=
re
> =A0> the claim of scientific support is bogus.
>
> The science is there. But denial is not a river in Egypt. :)

People keep saying it's there but no one seems to be able to cite
anything. Citations please...


>
> =A0>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be fo=
und
> =A0>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stan=
d up
> =A0>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if yo=
ur
> =A0>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know =
of
> =A0>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear direc=
tly.
> =A0>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
> =A0>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
> =A0>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
> =A0>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened t=
hat
> =A0>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out t=
o be
> =A0>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid tes=
t of
> =A0>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
> =A0>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my po=
int
> =A0>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
> =A0>> Greek letter omega.
> =A0>
> =A0> =A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
> =A0> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? Y=
ou
> =A0> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of =
a
> =A0> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>
> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diplom=
a
> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.

Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
fallacy. the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
truth.


>
> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
> detectability, etc).
>

Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing. But even
with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
testing.


> Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devices=
..
>
> If distortion is

[snipped hypathetical discussion] If.....


> =A0> I get the feeling
> =A0> you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm
>
> Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.

You can't speak for Bob.


>
> =A0>>>> As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests=
on
> =A0>>>> the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped ag=
ainst
> =A0>>>> the measured performance of audio gear.
> =A0>>> And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of =
peer
> =A0>>> reviewed published studies.
> =A0>> What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon =
has
> =A0>> a search function, too.
> =A0>
> =A0> Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability t=
o
> =A0> find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
> =A0> your burden of proof. I =A0ask =A0knowing there is nothing to suppor=
t your
> =A0> assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>
> Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things like
> long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
> flat. It simply is not flat, .

Argument by incredulity is a logical fallacy. This is just posturing.
Support the argument with valid scientific evidence that directly
relates to the subject at hand. Anything else is just more hand
waving. I would like to note at this point that whenever I ask fo the
science what i get is ad hominem and a wide array of arguments that
are filled with stereotypical logical fallacies. What I have never got
in any of these responses is any actual citations of peer reviewed
papers that support the argument of amplifier transparency. It wasn't
that long ago that the most recent version of creationism/ID was put
to the test in the courts. A defender, the infamous Michael Behe
testified that there was no scientific evidence of the evolution of
imune systems. In response the opposition produced a stack of
published peer reviewed papers. Here is a photo of that actual stack
along with an article on subject.http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/
immunology-spotlight-at-dover-intelligent-design-trial. now that is
scientific evidence! On the subjct of amplifier transparency we have
no such stack. That is the difference between the real scientists
supporting real science and the posturing we have here about the
science of amplifier transparency.

Show me the stack!!!

Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
bring the science not the rhetoric.


>
> =A0>>>> The DBTs that have been done,
> =A0>>>> either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
> =A0>>>> science.
> =A0>>> What science? Show me the actual science, please.
> =A0>> If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)
> =A0>
> =A0> =A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.
>
> It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.

More rhetoric. Show me the science.


>
> =A0> Feel free to prove
> =A0> me wrong.
>
> There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
> tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
> nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn'=
t
> there"...

More rhetoric sans any actual science.

Again, show me the Stack!!!

i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag.

[Harry Lavo]

>"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 10:04 am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
<snip>
<snip>

>> Why do you have so much difficulty separating the elegance of test design
>> from the specifics of the results.

>I don't think it's a particularly elegant test. I think it's a really
>bad test that happened to produce a positive result in this case, but
>would inevitably produce negative results in many other cases where
>audible differences are in fact present. I seriously doubt this test
>could pass peer review in a psychoacoustics journal, and I am
>absolutely certain it wouldn't pass if it produced a negative result.

>The only reason to believe this test is "elegant" is if you like the
>result it produced in this case.

You don't think a test with this much attention to detail throughout, and
cross-correlating perception ratings and brain-scan measurements is not
elegant? Then may I suggest you reconsider your understanding of the word
"elegant".

And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn't*
give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> Actually it's an argument by authority

So, peer-reviewed papers have no possible effect on your viewpoint, given
that they are just an example of argument by authority?

> One has to corolate the thresholds of human
> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
> of speakers.

That has been done, and you've been dismissing the relevant documents for
years.

Looks to me like you've painted yourself into a logic-tight box, Scott.

[bob]

On Apr 10, 12:28=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn't=
*
> give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
> execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?

In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.

But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
weeds).

And the design is utterly unnecessary. As the subsequent paper I cited
found, a simple same-different test (and ABX is just a form of same-
different test) can get the same result.

Now, that doesn't mean Oohashi et al were wrong to use that test. They
were after something more than just, can you hear a difference. But if
the question you want to answer is, can you hear a difference, it's a
lousy test because it can produce false negatives in cases where
standard tests will not.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 10, 7:35=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Actually it's an argument by authority
>
> So, =A0peer-reviewed papers have no possible effect on your viewpoint, gi=
ven
> that they are just an example of argument by authority?

how does this even get through? What did I say in my post? I said
among other things (I'll quote myself) " Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag." And here we have a comment that misrperesents my
"viewpoint." IOW no science as asked for just posturing about me. Pure
rhetoric.




>
> > One has to corolate the thresholds of human
> > hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
> > all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
> > of speakers.
>
> That has been done, and you've been dismissing the relevant documents for
> years.

Once again pure posturing. It has not been done here on Rec audio high
end. It certainly has not been done in this thread. I've asked for it
numerous times. In my last post I explicitely asked, I'll quote myself
again "Support the argument with valid scientific evidence that
directly
relates to the subject at hand. Anything else is just more hand
waving. I would like to note at this point that whenever I ask fo the
science what i get is ad hominem and a wide array of arguments that
are filled with stereotypical logical fallacies. What I have never
got
in any of these responses is any actual citations of peer reviewed
papers that support the argument of amplifier transparency."
Nothing here has changed. Still no stack. Not even a cover sheet. not
even a quote from a single page. Just posturing and ad hominem.


>
> Looks to me like you've painted yourself into a logic-tight box, Scott.

I'll say it again. " Don't bring me
into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
science flag."

Now one may say my post has zero audio content but that is because
every point I am responding to has zero audio content. And yet I
explicitely asked for all responses to my arguments to be 100%
substance in the form of real scientific evidence that supports
amplifier transparency. Or at the very least a corolation between all
measured parameters of amps and the thresholds of human hearing. I am
not interested in discussing *me* in any way shape or form. The folks
here never get it right anyway so stop it. It isn't about me. the
words "you" "Scott" (unless it is someone else named Scott with
relevant peer reviewed papers on the subject) "your" "you're" have no
place in any future discsuiions on the scientific support for the
assertion of amplifier transparency. *I* am not the subject of the
discsussion. Is that so difficult to understand?

This is the end of the discussion about me. Got it?

[ Let's bring it back to audio, please. -- dsr ]

[C. Leeds]

On 4/4/2011 2:54 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about identifying the magazine
he claims to write for):

> Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds,

What do you mean? You routinely respond to my posts here.

>I am
> directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
> magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
> writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name or
> by identifying the publication.

How very odd! There is no apparent conflict of interest. And for the
magazine to refuse to identify itself really looks fishy. I've worked in
media and publishing for quite a while and never heard of such a policy.

> What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
> and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
> write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
> published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
> now, wouldn't they?

So why not identify yourself?
Certainly, you're entitled to anonymity here. But you can't complain if
some readers just think you're a crank living in your parents basement.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 10, 7:36=A0am, bob > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:28=A0am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it *doesn=
't*
> > give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
> > execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?
>
> Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
> unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
> don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually exclusive?

el=B7e=B7gance (l-gns)
n.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:29:34 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article >):

> On 4/4/2011 2:54 PM, Audio Empire wrote (about identifying the magazine
> he claims to write for):
>
>> Normally I wouldn't respond to you, Mr, leeds,
>
> What do you mean? You routinely respond to my posts here.

I have responded to one or two before I figured out that it's an empty and
totally uninteresting undertaking.

> >I am
>> directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
>> magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of interests for his
>> writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her published name
>> or
>> by identifying the publication.
>
> How very odd! There is no apparent conflict of interest. And for the
> magazine to refuse to identify itself really looks fishy. I've worked in
> media and publishing for quite a while and never heard of such a policy.
>
>> What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
>> and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
>> write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
>> published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
>> now, wouldn't they?
>
> So why not identify yourself?
> Certainly, you're entitled to anonymity here. But you can't complain if
> some readers just think you're a crank living in your parents basement.
>
>

This is the last response I'll ever make to you, Mr. Leeds. You are a
pedantic contrarian who argues just to be negative and who seems unable to
follow a conversation's context. I have made that vow before and have broken
it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself - more
for everyone else's benefit than for yours, I might add.

If you want to think that I'm a crank, living in my parents' basement, that's
up to you. Perhaps by believing that, you will find it unnecessary to ever
address anything that I might say here, again. That would be a blessing.

[Harry Lavo]

>"bob" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the fact that it
>> *doesn't*
>> give the results you like), can you explain what part of its design and
>> execution are "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that conclusion?

>Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
>unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
>don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."

>Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
>test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
>Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?

>In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
>subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
>therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.

>But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
>are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
>didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
>but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
>IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
>result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
>a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
>weeds).

You are wrong in this, Bob. There IS a statistically significant
difference. Only it is not a conscious one, but rather an unconscious one
that shows up in the brain scans and in the more favorable ratings on some
musical attributes.

As the results of the test point out, the results (on a statistically
significant basis) can tell you not only that there was a difference, but
exactly where those differences lie. And the fact that the subjects
themselves couldn't consciously identify those differences, but their brains
and subconscious could, thus leading to the the statistical differences in
ratings and brain scan, are part of the eloquence of this test. As is the
relaxed listening environment set up. As is the split speaker-amplifier set
up (even though you assume but have no proof that it was inadequate). As is
the sophisticated double-blind sampling techique, and on, and on, and on.

>And the design is utterly unnecessary. As the subsequent paper I cited
>found, a simple same-different test (and ABX is just a form of
>same-ifferent test) can get the same result.

>Now, that doesn't mean Oohashi et al were wrong to use that test. They
>were after something more than just, can you hear a difference. But if
>the question you want to answer is, can you hear a difference, it's a
>lousy test because it can produce false negatives in cases where
>standard tests will not.

And as I suggested above, it's strength is that it may be able to identify
things that one hears "unconsciously" . It has long been postulated that
some long term perception of audio differences arises from an unconsious
feeling that this aspect is wrong, or that aspect is wrong but since it is
unconscious, it can't be dredged to the surface at will. Either all the
time for the hobbyist making the observation, and especially "upon demand"
for a highly conscious ABX difference test.

[bob]

On Apr 10, 8:51=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >"bob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test here. (And
> >unlike you, I don't really care what the results are.) And, no, I
> >don't think any test that complex qualifies as "elegant."
> >Ask yourself this question: What does it tell you if a standard ABX
> >test produces a negative result? And what does it tell you if an
> >Oohashi-style listening test produces a negative result?
> >In the case of ABX, it tells you, at the very least, that the
> >subject(s) could not reliably hear a difference in that test--and is
> >therefore at least suggestive of a more general conclusion.
> >But with the Oohashi test, it does not even tell you that. If there
> >are no statistically significant results, does that mean the subjects
> >didn't hear a difference? Or does it mean that they heard differences,
> >but didn't agree on the nature of those differences? You don't know.
> >IOW, as a test of difference, it's useless unless it gets a positive
> >result. (And there are serious statistical problems with defining what
> >a positive result would be, but that gets deep into the technical
> >weeds).
>
> You are wrong in this, Bob.

No, you are misunderstanding what I am talking about. Perhaps I can
make things clearer.

I am addressing the question of whether the *listening test
methodology* used by Oohashi et al is a good test to use for
determining whether there are audible differences between two
presentations. I am NOT talking about the specific test/results
reported by Oohashi. Now, go back and read it again and see if what I
said makes more sense.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob > wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
>>> fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
>>> you explain what part of its design and execution are
>>> "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
>>> conclusion?
>>
>> Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
>> here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
>> results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
>> complex qualifies as "elegant."
>
> Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
> exclusive?


It might be more dialect or custom than formal definition, but "an elegant
solution" has generally meant a relatively simple solution.

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/elegant-solution

"An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to problems in
disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and programming, is one in
which the maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or simplest
effort. "

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 11, 5:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob > wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
> >>> fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
> >>> you explain what part of its design and execution are
> >>> "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
> >>> conclusion?
>
> >> Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
> >> here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
> >> results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
> >> complex qualifies as "elegant."
>
> > Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
> > exclusive?
>
> It might be more dialect or custom than formal definition, but "an elegan=
t
> solution" has generally meant a relatively simple solution.

"elegant solution?" Who are you quoting? I would agree that elegance
and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but I would not agree that
elegance and complexity are mutually exclusive. I don't se any
particular lack of elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex test.

>
> http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/elegant-solution
>
> "An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to problems in
> disciplines such as mathematics, engineering, and programming, is one in
> which the maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or simple=
st
> effort. "

Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi might have
used that would have addressed the hypothesis in it's entirety?
Maximum desired effect achieved with the simplest or smallest effort
does not preclude a complex effort depending on the desired effect.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
[general snip]
>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>
>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>
>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>
> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
> fallacy.

Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.

> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
> truth.

As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
and do not require additional scrutiny.

If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
(again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.


>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>> detectability, etc).
>>
>
> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.

The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

> But even
> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
> testing.

It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).

>
>
>> Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devices.
>>
>> If distortion is
>
> [snipped hypathetical discussion] If.....

You snipped actual reasoning. In the very part you snipped there were
realistic (rather conservative in fact) numbers for an amplifier.

Don't snip releveant dicussion and then claim there is no discussion...


>>> I get the feeling
>>> you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm
>>
>> Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.
>
> You can't speak for Bob.

It doesn't matter one iota for the undefinedness of 0/0.


>>>>>> As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests on
>>>>>> the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped against
>>>>>> the measured performance of audio gear.
>>>>> And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of peer
>>>>> reviewed published studies.
>>>> What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon has
>>>> a search function, too.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
>>> find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
>>> your burden of proof. I ask knowing there is nothing to support your
>>> assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>>
>> Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things like
>> long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
>> flat. It simply is not flat, .
>
[general complaints about ad hominem against poster and OT discussion of
ID vs evolution court fight snipped]
> Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
> discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
> math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
> scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
> bring the science not the rhetoric.

If you write blattanly false things or mathematical nonsense like that
about 0/0 accept the reality that the *will* be named as such. No offense,
but a (mathematical) nonsense is a (mathematical) nonsense.


>>>>>> The DBTs that have been done,
>>>>>> either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
>>>>>> science.
>>>>> What science? Show me the actual science, please.
>>>> If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)
>>>
>>> The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.
>>
>> It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.
>
> More rhetoric. Show me the science.

See below...

>>> Feel free to prove
>>> me wrong.
>>
>> There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
>> tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
>> nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn't
>> there"...
>
> More rhetoric sans any actual science.
>
> Again, show me the Stack!!!

OK:

Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
New York, 1994.

Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.

Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.

Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997

Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.

Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2000.

Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
2, June 1974.

Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Los
Angeles, Sept 2000.

Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.

Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
Press, 2008.

>
> i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
> peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
> bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
> assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
> into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
> science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
> science flag.


It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Apr 11, 5:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob > wrote:
>>>> On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
>>>>> fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
>>>>> you explain what part of its design and execution are
>>>>> "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
>>>>> conclusion?
>>
>>>> Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
>>>> here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
>>>> results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
>>>> complex qualifies as "elegant."
>>
>>> Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
>>> exclusive?

>> It might be more dialect or custom than formal
>> definition, but "an elegant solution" has generally
>> meant a relatively simple solution.

> "elegant solution?" Who are you quoting?

I'm citing common knowlege among tech folks, which you might not be privy
to.

> I would agree
> that elegance and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but
> I would not agree that elegance and complexity are
> mutually exclusive.

That wasn't said, exactly. The qualifier "relatively" implies that
simplicity is relative. IOW if you know how complex the solution can get,
anything that is appreciably simpler could properly be called elegant.

> I don't se any particular lack of
> elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
> hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex
> test.

The global hypothesis of the Oohashi paper is given in its abstract:

"Although it is generally accepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in the
frequency range above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of such
"inaudible" high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception of
audible sounds remains unanswered. "

Let's skip over the obvious conundrum where it is conceeded in the abstract
that "humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range above 20 kHz" but
that yet they "may affect the acoustic perception "... ;-)

In some sense any of the far less complex solutions such as a simple ABX
test with recordings and reproduction chain capable of clean reproduction
with a sufficient bandpass (readily available these days) could provide
comparable results.

>> http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/elegant-solution

>> "An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to
>> problems in disciplines such as mathematics,
>> engineering, and programming, is one in which the
>> maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or
>> simplest effort. "

> Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi
> might have used that would have addressed the hypothesis
> in it's entirety?

See above. When you properly compare a recording with significant content
above 20 kHz to the identical same recording that is brick wall filtered at
20 KHz, you are addressing the hypothesis. It's all about perception, right?

> Maximum desired effect achieved with
> the simplest or smallest effort does not preclude a
> complex effort depending on the desired effect.

The more complexity, the greater the possibility of a hidden influence. Many
of us learned that when we did scientific experiments to pass lab courses in
order to get our technical degrees. The Arts students, not so much! :-(

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article >):

> Scott wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>> > wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
> [general snip]
>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>>
>>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>>
>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>>
>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
>> fallacy.
>
> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
> situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
> attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.
>
>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
>> truth.
>
> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
> of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious

True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands of
functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and many
of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.

> and do not require additional scrutiny.

Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier transparency
is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
accepted fact.

> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be the
case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven), then
no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear even
minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").

>
>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>>> detectability, etc).
>>>
>>
>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>
> The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
> and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
> then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.

You're going to have to prove that assertion. I've known lots of audiophiles
in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
clipping levels. OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot stand
to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
isn't.


>
>> But even
>> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
>> testing.
>
> It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
> the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).

According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the manufacturer's
specs and is not broken. Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that one
poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.


<snip>

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 12, 6:58=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 5:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Apr 10, 7:36 am, bob > wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 10, 12:28 am, "Harry Lavo" >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> And if you consider it a "bad test" (apart from the
> >>>>> fact that it *doesn't* give the results you like), can
> >>>>> you explain what part of its design and execution are
> >>>>> "bad" to your mind, and the logic behind that
> >>>>> conclusion?
>
> >>>> Well, I'm speaking specifically of the listening test
> >>>> here. (And unlike you, I don't really care what the
> >>>> results are.) And, no, I don't think any test that
> >>>> complex qualifies as "elegant."
>
> >>> Since when have complexity and elegance been mutually
> >>> exclusive?
> >> It might be more dialect or custom than formal
> >> definition, but "an elegant solution" has generally
> >> meant a relatively simple solution.
> > "elegant solution?" Who are you quoting?
>
> I'm citing common knowlege among tech folks, which you might not be privy
> to.
>
> > I would agree
> > that elegance and simplicity *often* go hand in hand but
> > I would not agree that elegance and complexity are
> > mutually exclusive.
>
> That wasn't said, exactly. The qualifier "relatively" implies that
> simplicity is relative. IOW if you know how complex the solution can get,
> anything that is appreciably simpler could properly be called elegant.
>
> > I don't se any particular lack of
> > elegance in the design of the Oohashi tests. The
> > hypothesis being tested pretty much demanded a complex
> > test.
>
> The global hypothesis of the Oohashi paper is given in its abstract:
>
> "Although it is generally accepted that humans cannot perceive sounds in =
the
> frequency range above 20 kHz, the question of whether the existence of su=
ch
> "inaudible" high-frequency components may affect the acoustic perception =
of
> audible sounds remains unanswered. "
>
> Let's skip over the obvious conundrum where it is conceeded in the abstra=
ct
> that "humans cannot perceive sounds in the frequency range above 20 kHz" =
but
> that yet they "may affect the acoustic perception "... ;-)
>
> In some sense any of the far less complex solutions such as a simple ABX
> test with recordings and reproduction chain capable of clean reproduction
> with a sufficient bandpass (readily available these days) could provide
> comparable results.
>
> >>http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/elegant-solution
> >> "An elegant solution, often referred to in relation to
> >> problems in disciplines such as mathematics,
> >> engineering, and programming, is one in which the
> >> maximum desired effect is achieved with the smallest, or
> >> simplest effort. "
> > Can you think of a simpler test methodology that Oosashi
> > might have used that would have addressed the hypothesis
> > in it's entirety?
>
> See above. When you properly compare a recording with significant content
> above 20 kHz to the identical same recording that is brick wall filtered =
at
> 20 KHz, you are addressing the hypothesis. It's all about perception, rig=
ht?
>
> > Maximum desired effect achieved with
> > the simplest or smallest effort does not preclude a
> > complex effort depending on the desired effect.
>
> The more complexity, the greater the possibility of a hidden influence. M=
any
> of us learned that when we did scientific experiments to pass lab courses=
in
> order to get our technical degrees. The Arts students, not so much! :-(

There is one important detail in the paper that seems to be crucial in
the choice of methodology.
" the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be parallel with
the =93conscious=94 audibility of air vibration."
http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full
If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go beyond ABX
comparisons since they are not proven to address biological
sensitivity of human beings that are not parallel with the concious
audibility of air vibration.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 12, 3:45=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > > wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
> [general snip]
> >>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be fou=
nd
> >>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand=
up
> >>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if you=
r
> >>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know o=
f
> >>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear direct=
ly.
> >>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
> >>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
> >>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
> >>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened th=
at
> >>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to=
be
> >>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test=
of
> >>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
> >>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my poi=
nt
> >>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
> >>>> Greek letter omega.
>
> >>> =A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
> >>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? Yo=
u
> >>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
> >>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>
> >> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period=
..
> >> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't ev=
ent
> >> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy dip=
loma
> >> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>
> > Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
> > fallacy.
>
> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.

But it is entirely avoidable in this thread. Good to see you
acknowledge the failure of the logic though.

>
> > the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
> > subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
> > evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
> > is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
> > truth.
>
> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existenc=
e
> of tooth fairies.

And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.


> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
> and do not require additional scrutiny.

But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
transparency.


>
> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) ar=
e
> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it doe=
s
> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.

That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
does not. I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
Feel free to do so any time.


>
> >> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
> >> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
> >> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
> >> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
> >> detectability, etc).
>
> > Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
> > amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
> > hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
> > all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
> > of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>
> The corelation is trivial.

Then show it. enough with the posturing.

> If

Not interested in hypotheticals.

>
> > But even
> > with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
> > testing.
>
> It simply would not.

Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.


>
>
>
> >> Then the evidence of measured properties of particular electronic devi=
ces.
>
> >> If distortion is
>
> > [snipped hypothetical discussion] If.....
>
> You snipped actual reasoning.

No I snipped an argument based on hypothetical situations. I am asking
for real science here. That wasn't it. That makes it irrelevant.

>
> Don't snip releveant dicussion and then claim there is no discussion...

I haven't.


>
> >>> I get the feeling
> >>> you are trying to imply that your zero is better than my zero. hmmm
>
> >> Nope. 0/0 zero is simply undefined. Ratio or not a ratio.
>
> > You can't speak for Bob.
>
> It doesn't matter one iota for the undefinedness of 0/0.

What does that have to do with my feeling Bob was trying to imply that
his zero was better than my zero?


>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> As I said in an earlier post, the real scientific case here rests =
on
> >>>>>> the well-documented limits of human hearing perception, mapped aga=
inst
> >>>>>> the measured performance of audio gear.
> >>>>> And I asked you to cite the evidence for that case in the form of p=
eer
> >>>>> reviewed published studies.
> >>>> What, you need my help to find basic psychoacoustics texts? Amazon h=
as
> >>>> a search function, too.
>
> >>> Bottom line is you got nothing to show. Posturing about my ability to
> >>> find pyschoacosustic books won't cover that fact up. Your assertion,
> >>> your burden of proof. I =A0ask =A0knowing there is nothing to support=
your
> >>> assertion. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>
> >> Well, that's you who are denying the obvious. Discussing such things l=
ike
> >> long estabilished hearing limits is like discussing that Earth is not
> >> flat. It simply is not flat, .
>
> [general complaints about ad hominem against poster and OT discussion of
> ID vs evolution court fight snipped]
>
> > Until such time we really have nothing more to talk about, All the
> > discusions about Rivers in Egypt and what I know or do not know about
> > math or science, or whether or not I personally set the standards of
> > scientific scrutiny are obfusecation. If you want to talk science then
> > bring the science not the rhetoric.
>
> If you write blattanly false things or mathematical nonsense like that
> about 0/0 accept the reality that the *will* be named as such. No offense=
,
> but a (mathematical) nonsense is a (mathematical) nonsense.

How does this support the claim for the scientific validity of the
belief in amplifier transparency? Please try to stay on subject rather
than looking for any opportunity to use ad hominem.


>
> >>>>>> The DBTs that have been done,
> >>>>>> either by scientists or amateurs, serves largely to confirm that
> >>>>>> science.
> >>>>> What science? Show me the actual science, please.
> >>>> If I thought you wanted to know, I would. :)
>
> >>> =A0The fact is you can't. The science isn't there.
>
> >> It is. It's is beyond the point of obviousness.
>
> > More rhetoric. Show me the science.
>
> See below...

Yeah I saw below. Please see disection that follows....


>
> >>> Feel free to prove
> >>> me wrong.
>
> >> There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
> >> tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your lo=
gic
> >> nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science i=
sn't
> >> there"...
>
> > More rhetoric sans any actual science.
>
> > Again, show me the Stack!!!
>
> OK:
>
> Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
> Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .

Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next

>
> Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
> New York, 1994.

No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
transparency....next

>
> =A0 Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
> Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.

Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next

>
> Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
> Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.
>
> Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
> Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.

Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?


>
> =A0 Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
> edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.
>
> Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997
>
> Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
> Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.
>
> Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
> York, 2000.
>
> Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
> Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
> 2, June 1974.
>
> Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
> Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Lo=
s
> Angeles, Sept 2000.
>
> Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
> Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
> Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.
>
> Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
> Press, 2008.

Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
"stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.


>
>
>
> > i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
> > peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
> > bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
> > assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
> > into the subject. =A0 That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
> > science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
> > science flag.
>
> It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.
>

What is wrong with the logic I have presented?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
>> [general snip]
>>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
>>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
>>> fallacy.
>> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
>> situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
>> attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.
>>
>>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
>>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
>>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
>>> truth.
>> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
>> of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>
> True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
> over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands of
> functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and many
> of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
> Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
> transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
> otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.

Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?

For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
factories, sales network, etc.

Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.

>> and do not require additional scrutiny.
>
> Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier transparency
> is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
> accepted fact.

As noted above, scientific obviousness does not require popular
acceptance. Scientific obviousness is decided by scientific reasoning
based on scientifically well established facts, not by popular vote.

>
>> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
>> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
>> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
>> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
>> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
>> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
>> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
>
> Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be the
> case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
> absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
> range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven), then
> no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear even
> minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
> different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
> to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
> transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
> generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").

Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.
Straight speaker wire reactance effects when speakers have low impedance
approaches much closer to hearing thresholds (in some cases we're just
there at the border , in many we're less than an order of magnitude
away) than contemporary amplifier signals.


Not so long time ago we were both participating in a thread where the
were actual calculations presented for some speakers showing effects just
behind the border of audibility -- like more than 1dB difference at around
8kHz. If such difference were in 3-5kHz range it would be certainly on
audible side. Thanks to significant (decline in human ear resolution above
~5kHz that effect is rather on the other side, but it's pretty close anyways.

>
>>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>>>> detectability, etc).
>>>>
>>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
>>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
>>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
>>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
>>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>> The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
>> and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
>> then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.
>
> You're going to have to prove that assertion.

Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
for all.

There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.

> I've known lots of audiophiles
> in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
> clipping levels.

Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.

As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
started to quote their own results. How 'surprising' ;)

> OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
> small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
> known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot stand
> to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
> to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
> trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
> isn't.

But psychoacoustic studies has taken this into account.

>
>
>>> But even
>>> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
>>> testing.
>> It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
>> the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).
>
> According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
> Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the manufacturer's
> specs and is not broken.

Nope. Not at all. It's specs must show it's performance is beyond hearing
thresholds. Of course they must be there from the start.

If your claim that the thing had visible notch

> Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
> the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that one
> poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
> characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


>> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>> subject of existence of tooth fairies.
>
> And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.

Scott, you seem to think that *logic according to Scott* is some kind of
gold standard that we all need to honor. All one needs to do is look at your
audio system to see that logic according to Scott leads to many dramatic
inefficiencies.

>> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>> and do not require additional scrutiny.

> But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of
> amplifier transparency.

Amplifier transparency can be demonstrated so easily that it simply isn't
worth the peer reviewed paper that you demand. It is simply a part of life
that was settled both practically and theorectically over 20 years ago, and
you haven't caught up.

So, you're caught on a treadmill of eternal upgrades. Beem there, done that
but haven't wasted my life with that (except for demonstration purposes) for
over 30 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> There is one important detail in the paper that seems to
> be crucial in the choice of methodology.
> " the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be
> parallel with the “conscious” audibility of air
> vibration."
> http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

And that is an interesting hypothesis or fact, depending on how you mean it.

The fact part of it is that we both feel and hear air vibrations.

The question of unconscious perception is really a general psychological
question, not an audio question. I tend to favor it.

> If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go
> beyond ABX comparisons since they are not proven to
> address biological sensitivity of human beings that are
> not parallel with the concious audibility of air
> vibration.

Wrong - why can't ABX tests include the effects of unconscious perceptions?

The answer is that if unconscious perceptions were important, then ABX tests
would already be demonstrating that.

There's no bias against unconscious perceptions in ABX tests. In fact I've
scored well in ABX tests where I did not have a conscious perception of a
difference. I just followed my unconscious perceptions and obtained
statistically signicant results.

Hmm, no MRI! ;-)

[Fred Dag]

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article >):
[color=green][i]
> > If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
> > psychoacoustics journals?
>
>
This from a man who can't present even one iota of plausibly
scientific evidence in favor of his position.

bob
For decades debates of this kind have raged on newsgroups (remember them?) and audio forums. Nobody that I've ever been aware of has ever had their opinion changed or even slightly modified by such discussions. From my perspective two things are important. 1.Double blind testing has never been offered to me by any audio retailer I've ever dealt with. 2, So, old or new gear I judge on purely subjective terms and put my money down even if my reactions might be considered delusional by some. It's amazing though how a multitude of such deluded evaluations have resulted in ever more enjoyment of recorded music over the ages. I run an assortment of up to the minute and re-designed older technology that somehow gets me closer to the heart and soul of music without having to wade through tedious debates about objective V subjective evaluations. Call me an idiot if you will.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There is one important detail in the paper that seems to
>> be crucial in the choice of methodology.
>> " the biological sensitivity of human beings may not be
>> parallel with the "conscious" audibility of air
>> vibration."
>> http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full
>
> And that is an interesting hypothesis or fact, depending on how you mean
> it.
>
> The fact part of it is that we both feel and hear air vibrations.
>
> The question of unconscious perception is really a general psychological
> question, not an audio question. I tend to favor it.
>
>> If that were true it would be a good reason to want to go
>> beyond ABX comparisons since they are not proven to
>> address biological sensitivity of human beings that are
>> not parallel with the concious audibility of air
>> vibration.
>
> Wrong - why can't ABX tests include the effects of unconscious
> perceptions?
>
> The answer is that if unconscious perceptions were important, then ABX
> tests
> would already be demonstrating that.
>
> There's no bias against unconscious perceptions in ABX tests. In fact I've
> scored well in ABX tests where I did not have a conscious perception of a
> difference. I just followed my unconscious perceptions and obtained
> statistically signicant results.
>
> Hmm, no MRI! ;-)
>

This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point to a consideration
that to me is the potentially devastating flaw in ABX testing....the
psychological phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms, when
something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in the unconscious. And
there is a ton of work been done in the last few decades that show that
music and its emotional and biological importance to the human being is
buried very deep in the human psyche. One can surmise, therefore, that it
manifests itself in the unconscious as well as the conscious.....if you
doubt this, read "Musicophilia - Tales of Music and the Brain" by Dr. Oliver
Sacks (yes, Arny, we know you glanced at it when I last recommended it and
decided you didn't find merit in it. Nonetheless...... )

So why do I say "potentially devastating". Because if our sublest musical
discernment can arise in an unconscious state (as many audiophiles attest)
and rise flickeringly to consciousness while in a relaxed state, then the
very fact of ABX forcing a CONSCIOUS choice becomes an intervening variable.
Simply put, the test itself is invalid because what it measures isn't what
it thinks it measures.

This was emphasized just recently to me by a personal example from the
medical field....that of heart monitoring. I have developed a tendency to
faintheadedness during the last four years, and recent testing suggests a
random irregularity in my heart beat. Diet has not been ruled out
completely, but the docs work suggests the heart. So over the last four
years I have been subjected to three bouts of heart monitoring....the
doctors do this routinely, and hope that when this lightheadedness occurs,
the monitor while be able to discern what
the heart is doing differently, or not. Guess what? In thirty-two days of
testing, I have never had such a lightheaded event. Never. Despit
maintaining my normal routine, including walking four miles in the morning
several days a week. The last two weeks, lightheadedness at least once
during the walk every day....this week, monitor on, nothing.

Now some of you will say, well you changed SOMETHING. True, you have to
accomodate wearing the monitor but this doesn't really change what normally
triggers the lightheadedness....steady walking, arising from a chair, etc.
The biggest change is that I am conscious of the fact that I am being
"monitored"....and this very awareness seems to change the way my body deals
with whatever stimulus is provoking the lightheadedness, and it is doing so
unconsciously. The doctor says a lot of patients exhibit this pattern, but
that doesn't mean that they don't turn out to have problems, its just that
eventually they show up via other passive testing....echocardiograms, for
example, not through use of the heart monitors. IF the problem is really
severe, it will usually occur anyway, and the monitors will show it
up......but if it is subtle, the event itself (in this case the
lightheadedness) may simply be suppressed by the body.

Until this issue is settled, SCIENTIFICALLY, so far as ABX and ABC/hr and
other conscious, forced testing is concerned, then double-blind or not the
testing can rightfully be viewed with suspicion. Only after such testing
has been validated to show that it actually captures the unconscious as well
as conscious perception can it be considered validated. The elegance of the
Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require forced,
conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the test
were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
evaluative listening technique, at least.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article >):

> Audio Empire wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
>>> [general snip]
>>>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>>>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>>>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy
>>>>> diploma
>>>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>>>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
>>>> fallacy.
>>> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
>>> situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
>>> attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.
>>>
>>>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>>>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
>>>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
>>>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
>>>> truth.
>>> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
>>> of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>>
>> True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
>> over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands
>> of
>> functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and
>> many
>> of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
>> Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
>> transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
>> otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.
>
> Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?

Who said anything about scientific credibility? I said "not scientifically
OBVIOUS."
>
> For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
> scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
> population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
> of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
> being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
> placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
> believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
> than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
> factories, sales network, etc.
>
> Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
> amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
> Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
> orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
> others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.

Then the failure of homeopathy to actually cure ailments, while it is a
scientific fact, it is not an obvious one. I have no problem with the test
results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or that
the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.



>
>>> and do not require additional scrutiny.
>>
>> Again, you are quite correct, and again, the "fact" of amplifier
>> transparency
>> is obviously not in this category, simply because it is not a universally
>> accepted fact.
>
> As noted above, scientific obviousness does not require popular
> acceptance. Scientific obviousness is decided by scientific reasoning
> based on scientifically well established facts, not by popular vote.
>
>>
>>> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
>>> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
>>> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
>>> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
>>> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
>>> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
>>> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
>>
>> Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be
>> the
>> case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
>> absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
>> range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven),
>> then
>> no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear
>> even
>> minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
>> different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
>> to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
>> transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
>> generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").
>
> Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.

Depends on your definition. To me a "straight wire" is a piece of solid wire
that goes from one point in a circuit to another, while I consider speaker
wire "cable". Since it usually is longer than 6 ft, is almost always
multi-stranded, and is rarely "straight", I don't see it as qualifying.

> Straight speaker wire reactance effects when speakers have low impedance
> approaches much closer to hearing thresholds (in some cases we're just
> there at the border , in many we're less than an order of magnitude
> away) than contemporary amplifier signals.
>
>
> Not so long time ago we were both participating in a thread where the
> were actual calculations presented for some speakers showing effects just
> behind the border of audibility -- like more than 1dB difference at around
> 8kHz. If such difference were in 3-5kHz range it would be certainly on
> audible side. Thanks to significant (decline in human ear resolution above
>> 5kHz that effect is rather on the other side, but it's pretty close anyways.
>
>>
>>>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>>>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>>>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>>>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>>>>> detectability, etc).
>>>>>
>>>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
>>>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
>>>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
>>>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
>>>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>>> The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
>>> and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
>>> then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.
>>
>> You're going to have to prove that assertion.
>
> Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
> undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
> of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
> for all.

"Most" is the operative word, here.

> There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
> kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
> turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
> samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
> of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
> from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.

There are some kinds of distortions that aren't readily perceived by most
people AS distortion. I remember a certain French tube amp (Jolida?) that was
raved about by the audiophile community (a capricious lot, at best) for a
time. It was measured to have more than 2% THD at less than half its output,
and almost 5% just before clipping. Many said that it was the best sounding
(as in most "musical") sounding amp that they had ever heard. I myself never
heard one of these in a setting where I could tell anything for sure, but at
the hi-fi show where I heard the amp, as far as I could tell, it sounded
fine.

>> I've known lots of audiophiles
>> in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
>> clipping levels.
>
> Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
> the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
> were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.

yep. I often marvel when someone pulls up beside me at a traffic light with
his car stereo blasting so loud that it is in CONSTANT clipping. The
"listener" seemed oblivious to the cacophony coming from his car stereo.
>
> As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
> forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
> very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
> started to quote their own results. How 'surprising' ;)


Don't doubt it.


>> OTOH, I've known people who were extremely sensitive to even
>> small amounts of distortion, especially in high frequencies. I've l've also
>> known people with such an inborn sensitivity to pitch, that they cannot
>> stand
>> to listen to most turntables and analog tape machines. I mention these only
>> to show that people's levels of perception are all over the place. I'm not
>> trying to present it as any kind of anecdotal evidence, as it obviously
>> isn't.
>
> But psychoacoustic studies has taken this into account.

>>
>>
>>>> But even
>>>> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
>>>> testing.
>>> It simply would not. That's the whole point. All is needed is to check if
>>> the device works within specs (IOW it's simply not broken).
>>
>> According to what you wrote above, a poorly designed amplifier such as a
>> Dynaco ST-120, is considered transparent because it meets the
>> manufacturer's
>> specs and is not broken.
>
> Nope. Not at all. It's specs must show it's performance is beyond hearing
> thresholds. Of course they must be there from the start.
>
> If your claim that the thing had visible notch
>
>> Yet, it is well known by most people to be one of
>> the poorest transistor amplifiers ever sold to the public. I believe that
>> one
>> poster here likened its sound to a "blender full of broken glass." A
>> characterization with which I fully agree. Most people do.
>
> rgds
> \SK
>

[Fred Dag]

This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point to a consideration
that to me is the potentially devastating flaw in ABX testing....the
psychological phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms, when
something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in the unconscious. And
there is a ton of work been done in the last few decades that show that
music and its emotional and biological importance to the human being is
buried very deep in the human psyche. One can surmise, therefore, that it
manifests itself in the unconscious as well as the conscious.....if you
doubt this, read "Musicophilia - Tales of Music and the Brain" by Dr. Oliver
Sacks (yes, Arny, we know you glanced at it when I last recommended it and
decided you didn't find merit in it. Nonetheless...... )

So why do I say "potentially devastating". Because if our sublest musical
discernment can arise in an unconscious state (as many audiophiles attest)
and rise flickeringly to consciousness while in a relaxed state, then the
very fact of ABX forcing a CONSCIOUS choice becomes an intervening variable.
Simply put, the test itself is invalid because what it measures isn't what
it thinks it measures.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .

Until this issue is settled, SCIENTIFICALLY, so far as ABX and ABC/hr and
other conscious, forced testing is concerned, then double-blind or not the
testing can rightfully be viewed with suspicion. Only after such testing
has been validated to show that it actually captures the unconscious as well
as conscious perception can it be considered validated. The elegance of the
Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require forced,
conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the test
were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
evaluative listening technique, at least.
A fascinating and possibly significant perspective but is leaves me wondering if audio reviewers need to be unconscious (semi-conscious?) when evaluating equipment in order to reach reliable conclusions. Maybe that's why they so frequently report getting stuck into the booze during listening sessions? We're also faced here with that old dilemma confronting us all. What is the reason we spend so much time and effort struggling to put together what each of us considers the best possible system within our individual budgets? Is our main purpose the objective evaluation of individual components in itself or the enjoyment of music and are the two states of mind mutually exclusive? There's a third class of audiophile (audiophool?) whose main purpose in fiddling around with audio gear is to make themselves appear expert on forums such as these. This particular animal ( I suspect AK is one) spends so much time posting in such places they can't have much left over to either objectively evaluate by playing ABX games or simply enjoying music for its own sake.
Remember music?

[C. Leeds]

On 4/10/2011 5:35 PM, Audio Empire wrote:


> This is the last response I'll ever make to you, Mr. Leeds. You are a
> pedantic contrarian who argues just to be negative and who seems unable to
> follow a conversation's context.

why so angry?


> I have made that vow before and have broken
> it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself

But you haven't explained yourself at all. You wrote:

> I am
> >> directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
> >> magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of
interests for his
> >> writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her
published name
> >> or
> >> by identifying the publication.

Where is the conflict? You haven't explained that at all.
You also wrote:

>>What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
>> and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I
might
>> write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some
of my
>> published writings

If you identify yourself in the magazine, why wouldn't you do that here?
After all, they are the same opinions, according to you.

Sometimes, journalists protect the identity of their sources. But for a
supposed journalist to conceal his own identity is very odd. What is it
you and your editor are afraid of?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
>> [general snip]
>>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy diploma
>>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
>>> fallacy.
>> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.
>
> But it is entirely avoidable in this thread.

It's not. This is not a mathematics NG, so such at the same time wrong as
well as off topic excurions are best dealt with just that.

> Good to see you
> acknowledge the failure of the logic though.

Besides, no logic works without some things agreed just to be 'as is'.
Without primordial concepts (things which are not defined) and axoims
(truths which are not proved) logic does not work.

>
>>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
>>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
>>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
>>> truth.
>> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
>> of tooth fairies.
>
> And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.
>
>
>> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>> and do not require additional scrutiny.
>
> But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
> transparency.

And evidence supporting that statement?


>> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
>> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
>> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
>> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
>> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
>> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
>> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
>
> That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
> the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
> hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
> does not.

It does. If something is orders of magnitude beyond what science has
determined to be required, then it's a trivial fact that it fits what
science requires.


> I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
> Feel free to do so any time.

I have.


>>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>>>> detectability, etc).
>>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
>>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
>>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
>>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
>>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>> The corelation is trivial.
>
> Then show it.

I have. That you're actively opposed to just getting it is not my problem
-- it's just your attitude.

> enough with the posturing.

Pot... Kettle... Black...


>> If
>
> Not interested in hypotheticals.

Not hypotheticals but preconditions. Get it.

We're not discussing particular device. So the precondition is a must.
Simple precondition that device parameters are significantly beyond what
science determined to be tresholds. And science *has* determined that
tresholds.


>>> But even
>>> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
>>> testing.
>> It simply would not.
>
> Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.

It would not. For a simple reason tha trivial mathematical inference. And
trivial mathematical inference is basic part of the scientific method.


[...]
>>>>> Feel free to prove
>>>>> me wrong.
>>>> There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves and
>>>> tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your logic
>>>> nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science isn't
>>>> there"...
>>> More rhetoric sans any actual science.
>>> Again, show me the Stack!!!
>> OK:
>>
>> Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
>> Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .
>
> Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next

It was discussed at nauseum here. Stop posturing.

>
>> Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Books,
>> New York, 1994.
>
> No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
> transparency....next

Relevant information about audio. Besides im 100% sure you didn't bother
to check actual text. Stop posturing.

>
>> Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
>> Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.
>
> Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next
>
>> Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
>> Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-728.
>>
>> Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
>> Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.
>
> Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?
>
>
>> Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2nd
>> edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.
>>
>> Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997
>>
>> Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
>> Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.
>>
>> Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, New
>> York, 2000.
>>
>> Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
>> Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 No.
>> 2, June 1974.
>>
>> Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
>> Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv., Los
>> Angeles, Sept 2000.
>>
>> Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
>> Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio Eng.
>> Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.
>>
>> Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
>> Press, 2008.
>
> Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
> considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
> "stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
> must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.

It's enough it allows to determine transparency by trivial inference.


>>> i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
>>> peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested in
>>> bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
>>> assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring me
>>> into the subject. That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
>>> science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
>>> science flag.
>> It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.
>
> What is wrong with the logic I have presented?

It starts with false premise that scientifically valid fact could be only
obtained by testing for just that fact. In reality only little minority of
scientifically valid facts are results of experiments. Vast, overwhelming
majority is just inferred from known laws, limits and thresholds.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Audio Empire wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:45:05 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
>>>> [general snip]
>>>>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be found
>>>>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also stand up
>>>>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if your
>>>>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know of
>>>>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear directly.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
>>>>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But is
>>>>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened that
>>>>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out to be
>>>>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid test of
>>>>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
>>>>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my point
>>>>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
>>>>>>>> Greek letter omega.
>>>>>>> I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
>>>>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? You
>>>>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of a
>>>>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
>>>>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Period.
>>>>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't event
>>>>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy
>>>>>> diploma
>>>>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
>>>>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
>>>>> fallacy.
>>>> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life. And in many
>>>> situations, it's the right way do deal with things. For example if someone
>>>> attempts to sidetrack a discussion with BTW completely mistaken notions.
>>>>
>>>>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
>>>>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
>>>>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
>>>>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
>>>>> truth.
>>>> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of existence
>>>> of tooth fairies. IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>>> True, but this isn't one of them. Unlike the tooth fairy, in which no one
>>> over the age of 7 actually believes, there are many hundreds of thousands
>>> of
>>> functioning adults throughout the world who are convinced otherwise, and
>>> many
>>> of them are amp designers such as Nelson Pass, Dan D'Augustino, William Z.
>>> Johnson, etc. Now, they may be WRONG in believing that amplifier
>>> transparency has not been achieved, but the fact that so many people think
>>> otherwise means that this fact" is NOT scientifically obvious.
>> Since when popularity contests determine truth, or scientific credibility?
>
> Who said anything about scientific credibility? I said "not scientifically
> OBVIOUS."

But my assertion is that the same thing could be said about scientific
obviousness.

>> For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
>> scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
>> population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs. Some
>> of those doctors simply prescribe that stuff since it makes patients feel
>> being treated as they think they should (and as the drugs are just a
>> placebo, 'prime non concere' rule is not violated), while others sincerely
>> believe (contrary to scientific evidence) that those drugs do work (better
>> than placebo). There is significant market for the stuff, there are
>> factories, sales network, etc.
>>
>> Many aspects of this resemble high end audio quite a lot. And I see those
>> amp designers being like those physicians prescribing homeopathic drugs.
>> Some might know that there is no difference, but don't see getting next
>> orders of magnitude below thresholds being detrimental in any way. And
>> others might sincerely believe that there is improvement.
>
> Then the failure of homeopathy to actually cure ailments, while it is a
> scientific fact, it is not an obvious one.

Now it is.

And, well, it was pretty obvious to anyone who analysed how it was
"constructed" and tried to scientifically understand it (to no avail). If
claimed amounts of some substance are less than smallest possible portion
of it (i.e. one molecule) then things must be wrong. :)

> I have no problem with the test
> results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
> fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or that
> the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.

Once upon a time earth being round was not obvious as well as its rotation
around its axis in slightly less than 24 hours. In a grand scheme of
things it was not very long ago.


[...]
>>>> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
>>>> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
>>>> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order of
>>>> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gain
>>>> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability) are
>>>> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it does
>>>> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
>>> Unfortunately, while there is certainly SOME evidence that this might be
>>> the
>>> case, until amplifiers measure perfectly (I.E. NO distortion of any kind,
>>> absolutely no frequency response derivations from perfect, over the entire
>>> range of human hearing, irrespective of load or how hard it is driven),
>>> then
>>> no one can be 100% sure that someone, under some conditions, cannot hear
>>> even
>>> minute differences between amplifiers. And if two amps can be made to sound
>>> different, under any conditions within the confines of circumstances likely
>>> to be found in someone's stereo system, then at least one of them is NOT
>>> transparent (to reiterate my definition of transparent - and I think the
>>> generally accepted one - is "a straight wire, with gain").
>> Well, straight wire has more pronounced effects than many amplifiers.
>
> Depends on your definition. To me a "straight wire" is a piece of solid wire
> that goes from one point in a circuit to another, while I consider speaker
> wire "cable". Since it usually is longer than 6 ft, is almost always
> multi-stranded, and is rarely "straight", I don't see it as qualifying.

OK.

But then, you're considering things like speaker cables as obviously
transparent, don't you?

And yet, some effects of speaker cables are significantly stronger than
those of aplifier.


[...]
>>>>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. The
>>>>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human hearing
>>>>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on various
>>>>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, phase
>>>>>> detectability, etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
>>>>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
>>>>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
>>>>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full range
>>>>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
>>>> The corelation is trivial. If say IM distrotion hearing treshold is -60dB
>>>> and anywhere in the range of an amplifier IM distortion is below -80dB
>>>> then the amplifier is incapable of producing audible IM distorion.
>>> You're going to have to prove that assertion.
>> Well, (scientific) literature claims that distortion below about 0.3% is
>> undetectable by most. In fact 1% is considered good for significant part
>> of the population in real life. -60db is 0.1% and is deemed good enough
>> for all.
>
> "Most" is the operative word, here.

But "All" is just in the next statement :)


>> There was online (and rather informal) test for detectability of some
>> kinds of distortion in real musical material. Test was blind, and in each
>> turn participant was to determine which of a pair of (othervise identical)
>> samples is distorted, and in each turn distortion was reduced by 6dB. Peak
>> of Gaussian curve was at -18dB. At -48dB results were indistingushiable
>> from pure chance. And it was still 12dB above -60.
>
> There are some kinds of distortions that aren't readily perceived by most
> people AS distortion.

Well, 2nd harmonic is generally much harder to detect (AFAIR it's
considered undetectable just at 2% -- this is significant difference vs
0.3% or 0.1%).

> I remember a certain French tube amp (Jolida?) that was
> raved about by the audiophile community (a capricious lot, at best) for a
> time. It was measured to have more than 2% THD at less than half its output,
> and almost 5% just before clipping. Many said that it was the best sounding
> (as in most "musical") sounding amp that they had ever heard. I myself never
> heard one of these in a setting where I could tell anything for sure, but at
> the hi-fi show where I heard the amp, as far as I could tell, it sounded
> fine.

Most probably. Jolida is quite popular among audiophiles on this side of
the pond.

But then, tests of detectability didn't ask for detrimental effect but any
audible effect (difference).


>>> I've known lots of audiophiles
>>> in my time. I've known people who cannot hear distortion until it reaches
>>> clipping levels.
>> Yes, there are many. -18dB (i.e. more than 10%) was Gaussian curve peak in
>> the aforementioned informal online test. IOW more than half population
>> were not bothered enough to determine which sample was distorted.
>
> yep. I often marvel when someone pulls up beside me at a traffic light with
> his car stereo blasting so loud that it is in CONSTANT clipping.

I think the find it being "the right way". I.E. the hear the difference,
but contrary to you, me as well as other people with (at least some)
musical sensibility, they consider sound without that distortion as
uninteresting.


> The
> "listener" seemed oblivious to the cacophony coming from his car stereo.

I'm affraid (s)he is happy because of distortion not despite it :)

>> As a sidenote -- the test was mentioned on some national audiophile online
>> forum. Many vocal 'golden ears' of the forum, which were active in the
>> very thread, suddenly remained silent when test was mentioned and people
>> started to quote their own results. How 'surprising' ;)
>
> Don't doubt it.

Never have :)

[...]

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 13, 12:08=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 03:59:12 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
> (in article >):

> > For example homeopathy does not work (i.e. it has been proved
> > scientifically as not different from placebo) yet large fraction of the
> > population believes it, and many doctors still prescribe such drugs.

But it is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows and understands the
laws of physics and chemistry (which admittedly few people understand
these days because of lousy education) that homeopathy cannot work.
Either the laws of physics we know are correct or homeopathy might
possibly work. If homeopathy works then the laws of physics and
chemistry as we know them are wrong. If you believe the laws of
physics and chemistry then it is plain and obvious that homeopathy
can't work. The laws themselves are not obvious, but one you
understand and accept them the, invalidity of homeopathy is perfectly
obvious.

> I have no problem with the test
> results, just that these scientific test results are not obvious like the
> fact that the earth is round, that gravity holds things to the earth or t=
hat
> the earth rotates on its axis approximately once every twenty-four hours.

None of these things are obvious at all. Men with minds just as good
as yours or mine believed other things for thousands of years.
Aristotle didn't believe in gravity. He believed that the entire
universe rotated around the motionless earth, and he was one of the
great geniuses of all time! Galileo couldn't accept Kepler's laws of
planetary motion, so that wasn't obvious even to a mind of that
quality. Yet he was darned near executed because he proclaimed that
the earth moved!! Only about 500 years ago. And you call that fact
"obvious"!!

The best mathematicians of enlightenment era Europe could not come up
with the law of gravity until Newton came along. They came close but
none of them could prove it because they didn't have the mathematical
tools. Even Newton didn't get it quite right and it took Einstein to
correct him hundreds of years later.

To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
Earth is round. Stand on a mountain top and it appears perfectly
obvious that the earth is generally flat. I know because I have done
so. I have flown at 35,000 feet and the curvature of the earth, which
I looked for, was in no way visible to the eye. It is only when you
examine the evidence from a scientific perspective that you can show
it isn't generally flat. I believed the Earth was round as a youth
because my parents and teachers told me it was.

I took the time later on my own to make the rather simple observations
that provide me with the evidence that the Earth is not flat on the
large scale. Did you? Or is it just "obvious" to you because your
parents and teachers told you so? Could you, without scientific
tools, prove that the surface of the earth is curved? Have you taken
the trouble?

And though I could prove for myself that the Earth's surface is curved
it is not obvious that it is a sphere. As a matter of fact, as I am
sure you already know, it isn't a sphere, it only approximates one.

But suggesting things that it took thousands of years with the best
minds of the day not believing, indeed actively denying, these things
you cite as "obvious" certainly does not fit in with any definition of
"obvious" that I have ever seen! I would never ever say that these
things are "obvious", because to do so would be to insult the greatest
minds in history, beside whom my own intellect is the size of a knat.

[Harry Lavo]

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 7:45 am, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>> The elegance of the
>> Oohashi test is that the researchers set out to duplicate (as much as
>> possible) a listening environment and protocol that didn't require
>> forced,
>> conscious, immediate choice, and then duplicated the experience using
>> passive, neurological monitoring to make sure that both the post-test
>> conscious evaluation and the unconscious physiological reaction to the
>> test
>> were being monitored. And in doing so, they found consistency using THIS
>> evaluative listening technique, at least.

>That's a stretch. There was no post test correlation between the
>straightforward preference question and the stimuli or the
>physiological response to the stimuli

>One could just as easily postulate in this bizaare conundrum you've
>created that the physiological responses only exist in the environment
>where measurement of it is taking place. If blocking is real, then
>it's converse is just as possible.

There was in fact a statistically significant difference in the quality of
sound and pleasureability ratings with and without ultrasonics, and in the
separate test, between the stimuli with and without ultrasonics. The two
"unconscious" differences were revealed and correlated; the conscious
preferences not so much.

[KH]

On 4/14/2011 8:00 AM, C. Leeds wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 5:35 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

<snip>
>> I have made that vow before and have broken
>> it this once only to fully explain my position on identifying myself
>
> But you haven't explained yourself at all. You wrote:
>
> > I am
> > >> directly enjoined from giving out that information. The editor of the
> > >> magazine for which I write feels that it is a conflict of
> interests for his
> > >> writers to engage in debating on these forums using his/her
> published name
> > >> or
> > >> by identifying the publication.
>
> Where is the conflict? You haven't explained that at all.

The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
continued employment - as he clearly explained. Mayhap this illustrates
the pedantry to which he was referring?

Keith

[C. Leeds]

On 4/14/2011 4:14 PM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

> To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
> Earth is round. Stand on a mountain top and it appears perfectly
> obvious that the earth is generally flat. I know because I have done
> so. I have flown at 35,000 feet and the curvature of the earth, which
> I looked for, was in no way visible to the eye. It is only when you
> examine the evidence from a scientific perspective that you can show
> it isn't generally flat.

This is a common misnomer. It is easy to see and prove that the Earth is
round. Simply stand on the shore and watch a ship sail towards the
horizon. The top of its mast will be the last part of the ship that's
visible, as the lower part of the ship becomes obscured by the curvature
of the earth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

>
> This discussion above can serve as the jumping off point
> to a consideration that to me is the potentially
> devastating flaw in ABX testing....the psychological
> phenomenon of "blocking". That is, in simplest terms,
> when something is made conscious, it no longer dwells in
> the unconscious.

I think you just made a self-annihilating argument, Harry. ;-)

The purpose of every listening test I've ever heard of is gathering evidence
for a decision that ultmately shows up as a conscious act. IME people do
listening evaluations and make conscious choices about buying equipment
right there in the middle of the listening session! The horror! ;-)

It might help if you stoped making these arguments that are based on the
false idea that ABX is totally asymmetric with everything else that happens
in life.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Apr 15, 6:08=A0am, "C. Leeds" > wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 4:14 PM, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
>
> > To bring in my own favourite example, it isn't even obvious that the
> > Earth is round. =A0

> This is a common misnomer.

Nope.

>It is easy to see and prove that the Earth is
> round. Simply stand on the shore and watch a ship sail towards the
> horizon. The top of its mast will be the last part of the ship that's
> visible, as the lower part of the ship becomes obscured by the curvature
> of the earth.

People who sailed ships knew this for thousands of years, but still it
did not become general knowledge until the last few hundred years,
though the Greeks knew 2500 years ago, nor did it seem to prove that
the earth is approximately spherical even so.

But I did not say it wasn't "easy to see and prove" that the earth was
round, I said that it wasn't "obvious", and I still say it isn't. You
cannot SEE the curvature of the earth from any place on it. You can
deduce it fairly easily but that requires a process of thought that
takes it well beyond "obvious".
Thus you seem to be beating a strawman here since you are not arguing
with my assertion that it isn't "obvious" that the Earth is round.

The fact remains that to someone standing on a high hill, or even
flying at 35,000 feet, you cannot directly see the curvature of the
Earth and the general trend appears to be a flat disk. And without
further investigation it is indeed "obvious" to the eye that it is
generally flat.

Historically, if my memory serves me, there were alternate
explanations to the disappearance of ships over the horizon, among
them refraction by the atmosphere.

There are still, by the way, societies dedicated to spreading the
world that the earth is not round, but flat. So it isn't obvious to
them.

To try to bring this back to the topic, it isn't "obvious" that well
made modern amplifiers are transparent as far as human hearing goes.
It is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO, but not "obvious".

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 14, 10:18=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > > wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>> On Apr 6, 4:56 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> Scott wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 4, 8:20 am, bob > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, Scott > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:54 am, bob > wrote:
> >> [general snip]
> >>>>>>>> A better picture of the state of knowledge in the field can be f=
ound
> >>>>>>>> in textbooks, which are not only peer-reviewed but must also sta=
nd up
> >>>>>>>> in the marketplace. You aren't going to sell many textbooks if y=
our
> >>>>>>>> colleagues think you got a lot of stuff wrong, after all. I know=
of
> >>>>>>>> only one psychoacoustics textbook that discusses audio gear dire=
ctly.
> >>>>>>>> I'll bet you can guess what it says. :-)
> >>>>>>> I'd like to know what it actually says on the transparency of all
> >>>>>>> things debated on this forum. I'll bet it says very little. But i=
s
> >>>>>>> this is really what ya got? One text book? has it never happened =
that
> >>>>>>> a text book was published with information that later turned out =
to be
> >>>>>>> eroneous? This is the great body of evidence? This is the acid te=
st of
> >>>>>>> every audiophile's literacy on science? One text book? Really?
> >>>>>> The ratio of peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting my p=
oint
> >>>>>> of view to those supporting yours is generally represented by the
> >>>>>> Greek letter omega.
> >>>>> =A0I wiil fix your math on this one. It is 0/0 which is a ratio of
> >>>>> 50-50. Why would you try to use a Greek letter to express a ratio? =
You
> >>>>> do know what a ratio is don't you? They are relative proportions of=
a
> >>>>> whole. In this case we are even steven. 50-50, 0-0.
> >>>> It's not. You're doubly wrong on that. First, 0/0 is undefined. Peri=
od.
> >>>> And, to stop any further discussion in that direction, please don't =
event
> >>>> try to teach me mathematics, as the first 3 words on my univeristy d=
iploma
> >>>> are Faculty of Mathematics. But that's just a sidenote.
> >>> Actually it's an argument by authority and is pretty much a logical
> >>> fallacy.
> >> Yes, of course. It's simply unavoidable in real life.
>
> > But it is entirely avoidable in this thread.
>
> It's not.

Maybe you can't avoid argument by authority but it could be avoided by
someone who actually has the goods on the subject. That is always the
case with argument by authority. It is at best a lazy shortcut. At
worst it is a bluff used by folks who don't really have the goods to
support their assertions. It is always avoidable. But not for all
persons making arguments.

>
> > Good to see you
> > acknowledge the failure of the logic though.
>
> Besides, no logic works without some things agreed just to be 'as is'.
> Without primordial concepts (things which are not defined) and axoims
> (truths which are not proved) logic does not work.
>

True but if you are using faulty axioms you do have a fundamental
problem.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> the point is there is no peer reviewed evidence on the
> >>> subject of amplifier transparency. so arguing that the lack of
> >>> evidence supports one side or the other based on the lack of evidence
> >>> is, in effect cherry picking and a misrepresentation of the whole
> >>> truth.
> >> As I wrote. There is no peer reviewed evidence on the subject of exist=
ence
> >> of tooth fairies.
>
> > And I already addressed the logical fallacies of doing so.
>
> >> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
> >> and do not require additional scrutiny.
>
> > But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of amplifier
> > transparency.
>
> And evidence supporting that statement?

The mere fact that amplifers clearly don't meausre the same.

>
> >> If things like hearing tresholds are estabilshed and then if some
> >> particular pair of different devices exeed the required accuracy (as
> >> determined by aforementioned tresholds) each by no less than an order =
of
> >> magnitude then statement that those devices, when set for the same gai=
n
> >> (again withn the range of thresholds of gain difference detectability)=
are
> >> indistingushable by human hearing is just a simple conclusion, and it =
does
> >> not require more scrutiny to be taken as scientifically valid.
>
> > That's a nice hypothetical but the assertion scientific support for
> > the belief in amplifier transparancy can not be supported by
> > hypatheticals. Either the scientifically valide evidence exists or it
> > does not.
>
> It does.

Then please show it. I have only asked for it over a dozen times on
this thread.

> If something is orders of magnitude beyond what science has
> determined to be required, then it's a trivial fact that it fits what
> science requires.

Another hypothetical in place of actual substance pertaining to the
issue of amplifier transparency... Show me the goods!!!


>
> > I would think if it did someone would have cited it by now.
> > Feel free to do so any time.
>
> I have.

No you have not. You have not cited one single scrap of peer reviewed
evidence supporting the belief in amplifier transparcy. You offered a
"stack" of publictaions that either did not relate directly to the
question and/or were not peer reviewed papers. You haven't even come
close to making your case.


>
> >>>> The more important point is that is not 0/0, it's N/0 where N>>0. Th=
e
> >>>> scientific evidence is there. The scientific evidence on human heari=
ng
> >>>> tresholds (like hearablity of various kinds of distortions on variou=
s
> >>>> classes of signals, frequency and amplitude resolution, masking, pha=
se
> >>>> detectability, etc).
> >>> Well that is great. But what does it actually say in regards to
> >>> amplifier transparency? One has to corolate the thresholds of human
> >>> hearing to all measured parameters of a given amplifier and how the
> >>> all the measured parameters affect the acoustic output of a full rang=
e
> >>> of speakers. Without the corolation you really have nothing.
> >> The corelation is trivial.
>
> > Then show it.
>
> I have. That you're actively opposed to just getting it is not my problem
> -- it's just your attitude.

Dude stop with the personal attacks please. You have not shown any
such thing. Not even close.



>
> =A0> enough with the posturing.
>
> Pot... Kettle... Black..

an acknowledgement of your posturing perhaps?


>
> >> If
>
> > Not interested in hypotheticals.
>
> Not hypotheticals but preconditions. Get it.

No they are hypotheticals. Preconditions would be followed by real
world data. You drop the ball right there. so we are left with empty
hypotheticals.


>
> We're not discussing particular device. So the precondition is a must.

Indeed that we are not discussing any particular device shows that you
are dealing in hypotheticals.


> Simple precondition that device parameters are significantly beyond what
> science determined to be tresholds. And science *has* determined that
> tresholds.

With zero reall world support cited. You are pretty much talking about
the trasnparecy of non existant amplifiers based on a corolation of
vague hypothetical circumstances and then asking us to take your word
on it that this non existant amplifier is audibly transparent using no
specific speaker system.


>
> >>> But even
> >>> with it all you have is a hypothesis that would require valid
> >>> testing.
> >> It simply would not.
>
> > Absolutely it would. That is a basic part of the scientific method.
>
> It would not. For a simple reason tha trivial mathematical inference. And
> trivial mathematical inference is basic part of the scientific method.

So it is your position that actual tesing is not part of the
scientific method? I'll keep that in mind in all future discussions
with you regarding science.


>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> Feel free to prove
> >>>>> me wrong.
> >>>> There is no any peer reviewed article about not existence of elves a=
nd
> >>>> tooth fairies. Nor even the proof appears in textbooks. But by your =
logic
> >>>> nonexistence of tooth fairies is not backed by science: "The science=
isn't
> >>>> there"...
> >>> More rhetoric sans any actual science.
> >>> Again, show me the Stack!!!
> >> OK:
>
> >> Ballou, Glen, Ed., Handbook for Sound Engineers, 2nd ed, Howard Sams,
> >> Carmel, Indiana, 1991 .
>
> > Not a peer reviewed scientific paper....next
>
> It was discussed at nauseum here. Stop posturing.

What posturing? I am stating a fact about your alleged stack of peer
reviewed evidence in support of the belief in amplifier transparency.
That is an automatic disqualifier.

>
>
>
> >> Everest, F. Alton, The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 3rd ed., Tab Book=
s,
> >> New York, 1994.
>
> > No relevant information on the subject of amplifier
> > transparency....next
>
> Relevant information about audio. Besides im 100% sure you didn't bother
> to check actual text. Stop posturing.

Dude I own the book. Bet you didn't see that coming. LOL so who is
posturing here? No there is no relevant information in that book
(which is not a peer reviewed scientific publication) in support of
the belief of amplifier transparency. NONE. that you would try to slip
this in the "stack" smacks of pure desperation. Ironically you cited
other publications that were even less relevant. Your bluff has been
called. surprise!!!

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> =A0 Nashif, A. D., Jones, D. I. G., and Henderson, J. P., "Vibration
> >> Damping", Wiley, New York, 1985.
>
> > Irrelevant to the subject of amplifier transparency...next

LOL you didn't even try to defend that one.

>
> >> Harwood, H. D., "Loudspeaker Distortion Associated With Low-Frequency
> >> Signals," J. Audio Engineering Soc., Vol 20, No. 9, Nov 1972, pp 718-7=
28.
>
> >> Weast, Robert C., Ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th ed,
> >> Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, OH, 1968.
>
> > Seriously? A handbook on chemestry and physics?
>
> >> =A0 Jahn, A. F., and Santos-Sacchi, J., eds, "Physiology of the Ear (2=
nd
> >> edition)," Singular Thompson Learning, Dec. 2000.
>
> >> Jourdain, R., Music, the Brain and Ecstasy, Avon Books, New York, 1997
>
> >> Lyons, Richard G., Understanding Digital Signal Processing,
> >> Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1997.
>
> >> Pohlmann, Ken C., Principles of Digital Audio, 4thy ed., McGraw-Hill, =
New
> >> York, 2000.
>
> >> Nelson, David A., and Bilger, Robert C., "Pure-Tone Octave Masking in
> >> Normal-Hearing Listeners," J. of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 17 =
No.
> >> 2, June 1974.
>
> >> Toole, Floyd E., "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers an=
d
> >> Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future," 109th AES Conv.,=
Los
> >> Angeles, Sept 2000.
>
> >> Lip****z, Stanly P., Pocock, Mark, and Vanderkooy, John, "On the
> >> Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems,' J. Audio En=
g.
> >> Soc., Vol. 30, No, 9, Sept. 1982, pp 580-595.
>
> >> Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language, and the Brain, Oxford University
> >> Press, 2008.
>
> > Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
> > considered peer reviewed science. I guess I should clarify what
> > "stack" I am looking for here. It must be scientifically valid and it
> > must support the assertion of amplifier transparency.
>
> It's enough it allows to determine transparency by trivial inference.

Prove it. As of now you have cited no speicifc evidence from any peer
reviewed studies much less made any corolation with human thresholds
of hearing. You have offered a "stack" of irrelevant publications most
of which are not peer reviewed and offer no evidence one way or
another in support of the belief of amplifier transparency.


>
> >>> i am done with the rhetoric. I am not interested in discussing other
> >>> peoples' opinions on what I know or don't know. I am not interested i=
n
> >>> bad analogies to tooth fairies. Show how the science supports the
> >>> assertion of amplifier transparency. It isn't about me. Don't bring m=
e
> >>> into the subject. =A0 That nonsense is beyond old. Either bring the
> >>> science you claim is beyond the point of obviousness or put away the
> >>> science flag.
> >> It's not about you it's about logic you've presented.
>
> > What is wrong with the logic I have presented?
>
> It starts with false premise that scientifically valid fact could be only
> obtained by testing for just that fact.

I never made that claim. So let me ask again what is wrong with the
logic **I** have presneted? Not interested in your misrepresentations
of my positions. You might want to provide quotes in context so as to
not misrepresent my arguments.

[C. Leeds]

Audio Empire claims to write for an audio magazine that won't allow him
to identify it or himself here because of a supposed "conflict of
interest." I've been asking where the conflict of interest is.

On 4/14/2011 9:20 PM, KH wrote:

> The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
> continued employment - as he clearly explained.

That's circular reasoning. It's like saying, "That person is fat because
he is overweight."

I understand that there is a supposed claim of conflict of interest. I'm
asking: what is the conflict? What would be the negative consequence of
a journalist identifying himself in this group? Remember, Audio Empire
also said:

> What I say here are MY thoughts, MY opinions
> and have nothing whatsoever to do with the publications for which I might
> write except that some of my opinions might actually show up in some of my
> published writings - since they're my opinions, they would almost have to,
> now, wouldn't they?

The audiophile press often gets a bad rap in this group, and I usually
defend the press. But this is very weird. Journalists rarely invoke
anonymity for themselves. Good journalists are publicly responsible for
what they write. It's part of the job. But you can't be responsible if
you insist on anonymity.

Or, as I've mentioned, it's possible Empire is just a crank writing from
his parents' basement.



[ Some time ago, the moderators decided not to accept articles from
Audio Empire until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that
he works for. Apart from that, let us not harass him personally. A
discussion of journalistic ethics specifically relating to high-end
audio is on-topic. -- dsr ]

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 13, 4:53=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> Scott, you seem to think that *logic according to Scott* is some kind of
> gold standard that we all need to honor. All one needs to do is look at y=
our
> audio system to see that logic according to Scott leads to many dramatic
> inefficiencies.
>

Wow I ask for science to support your assertion of scientific validity
and you offer sour grapes over my superior high end system as a device
for a personal attack against me. that is rich. Not sure how this
comment passes moderation. Clearly it offers no value to the
discussion and is pure ad hominem. This gets through despite my clear
request that this not be about me personally. Kinda reflects pretty
poorly on the forum itself.

>
> Amplifier transparency can be demonstrated so easily that it simply isn't
> worth the peer reviewed paper that you demand. It is simply a part of lif=
e
> that was settled both practically and theorectically over 20 years ago, a=
nd
> you haven't caught up.

More posturing in place of actual science. Clearly you have nothing to
offer in the way of peer reviewed evidence to support the assertion of
amplifier transparency. so much for that assertion.


>
> So, you're caught on a treadmill of eternal upgrades. Beem there, done th=
at
> but haven't wasted my life with that (except for demonstration purposes) =
for
> over 30 years.

I don't think you really want to go down that path Arny. This isn't a
contest about what you and I have done with our lives over the past
thirty years. Again I am not interested in your misguided opinions
about me. They have no place in any discussion of the scientific
support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So for the last time
lets cut the garbage and stick with audio. More specifically the
actual scientific support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So
far the some total is zero.

Please excuse the lack of audio content in this post but it is a
response to a post that lacks audio content and makes very ugly
personal attacks against my character.


[ This thread is done, as it no longer contains any
audio-related content. Please do not reply. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Apr 14, 10:18 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>>> > wrote:

>>>> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
>>>> and do not require additional scrutiny.

>>> But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of
>>> amplifier transparency.

As usual Scott, where is the peer-reviewed article(s) to support that
unfounded and easy-to disprove assertion?

>> And evidence supporting that statement?

> The mere fact that amplifiers clearly don't measure the
> same.

There is more than a little evidence showing that different measurements
don't necessarily equal different sound. Some of the oldest is found in the
Fletcher-Munson curves.

Once the intensity of a sound at a certain frequency drops below a certain
level, it not audible. It may still have an infinite number of different
intensities and as long as they are all below the threshold, they can't be
heard. Therefore there is ancient (> 60 years old) peer-reviewed evidence
that measures different does not necessarily mean sounds different.

There is more than a little evidence (It is in the Clark JAES
(Peer-reviewed) ABX article), that equipment whose frequency response
measures different but is otherwise similar enough does not sound
different.

The recent JAES article that shows that a 16/44 link can be interposed in an
excellent playback system with a so-called high resolution source (DVD-A,
SACD) without detection shows that the changes in measured performance
caused by the 16/44 link (which are many!) has no audible effect.

So there you go Scott - 3 peer reviewed papers, one 60 years old, one 30
years old and one 3 years old, that falsify your claim. They have all stood
the test of time.

Dismiss that!

[KH]

On 4/16/2011 6:56 PM, C. Leeds wrote:
> Audio Empire claims to write for an audio magazine that won't allow him
> to identify it or himself here because of a supposed "conflict of
> interest." I've been asking where the conflict of interest is.
>
> On 4/14/2011 9:20 PM, KH wrote:
>
>> The conflict is with his employer's (editor's) conditions for his
>> continued employment - as he clearly explained.
>
> That's circular reasoning. It's like saying, "That person is fat because
> he is overweight."
>
> I understand that there is a supposed claim of conflict of interest. I'm
> asking: what is the conflict? What would be the negative consequence of
> a journalist identifying himself in this group? Remember, Audio Empire
> also said:
>

Well...in a nutshell, no that is not circular. You asked him to explain
*himself*. He did. You are asking him now to explain the thought
process of his editor - something none of us can do with certainty - and
impugning his veracity in the same breath.

Now, he could well be a crank writing from a cave for all the personal
knowledge I have about him. But, after having given you an answer to
your original question, and then vowing no further responses to you
would be forthcoming, your demand that he now expound on another persons
motives has the unmistakable scent of troll wafting about it.

<snip>

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 16, 6:57=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
>> More specifically the
>> actual scientific support for the belief in amplifier transparency. So
>> far the some total is zero.
>>
>
> I find these debates on amplifier transparency a bit tedious as they
> usually fail to identify some basic tenants that amps must meet to be
> "transparent".
>
> I think if the basic requirements for "transparency" were first listed
> (a list you may very well agree upon) then you may even agree that
> there are many amps on the market that are intentionally not
> "transparent" by their designers.
>
> I also find it difficult to define a test for amplifier transparency
> as any test would have to include speakers which require signal
> amplification to operate and there is no easily established baseline
> (i.e, no amp) to compare to with an amp to declare transparency. Only
> options that comes to mind is some kind of cascade test such as has
> been done with D/A A/D chains but that only shows transparency in the
> case of a preceding amplification which means subsequent amp
> signatures are transparent only after the signal has been imprinted
> with an amp signature and without taking for granted that doesn't
> influence the outcome, I don't see how a pure test for transparency
> can be constructed.

This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook the possibility that
different loads MIGHT affect different amplifiers in different ways. Also,
anybody who thinks that different amplifiers don't handle low bass in vastly
different ways isn't really paying attention. Some amps render bass less well
controlled than others, and with really wide-range speakers with a good
really low bottom end, some amps seem not to be as flat wrt power response as
do some others. This is especially true of tube amps, where output
transformer design greatly affects low frequency performance, but I've also
heard this effect with solid-state amps.

> Even if you could establish transparency that would only be relevant
> for that amp/speaker combination as there are obvious interactions
> that would disallow extrapolation to another combination so I don't
> see any significance of such a test.

Again, you make a good point. differences in damping factor alone can account
for amps sounding a bit different on a single loudspeaker system.

> Amplification is just one small part of a rather long chain of steps
> in music reproduction and establishing transparency or lack thereof in
> that one small step isn't particularly meaningful to me in the final
> outcome.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I use my system to listen to music,
and the idea of transparency is of small concern to the "listening" me. What
is important, OTOH, is the musicality of the complete ensemble. I feel that
the interest in music and the sound of music is at the core of high-end
audio. Without that musical interest, the sound and the pursuit of it becomes
largely irrelevant, as do all the listening and measuring tests that one
could possibly come-up with. A transparent system that makes music sound
unmusical is of little use to anyone who's interest is the MUSIC and not some
form of uber-neutrality for neutrality's sake. Unfortunately, I see a lot of
the latter being championed here. IOW, if "transparency" robs the performance
of it's life and soul, then I say the hell with it. Give me amps that are
colored (in the right way, of course) any day of the week. 8^)

[[email protected], [email protected]]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:56:36 -0700, dsr wrote:

> [ Some time ago, the moderators decided not to accept articles from
> Audio Empire until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that
> he works for.

I apologize for my misstatement here. The moderators decided not to
accept articles from Audio Empire *that* *discuss* *audio* *publications*
until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that he works for.

-dsr- for r.a.h-e moderators

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 17, 9:04=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 10:18 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> > > wrote:
> >> Scott wrote:
> >>> On Apr 12, 3:45 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> IOW, some facts are considered (scientifically) obvious
> >>>> and do not require additional scrutiny.
> >>> But that clearly would not apply to the assertion of
> >>> amplifier transparency.
>
> As usual Scott, where is the peer-reviewed article(s) to support that
> unfounded and easy-to disprove assertion?

Why are you asking for peer reviewed articles when the specific
question here is obviousness?

>
> >> And evidence supporting that statement?
> > The mere fact that amplifiers clearly don't measure the
> > same.
>
> There is more than a little evidence showing that different measurements
> don't necessarily equal different sound. Some of the oldest is found in t=
he
> Fletcher-Munson curves.

And there is plenty of evidence showing that different measurements
often do mean different sound. therefore the alleged "obviousness"
goes out the window. The topic is really silly. It's just prejudicial
language in place of actual substance. If we are talking about actual
scientific support for an assertion "obviousness" is not a measure of
any meaning.


>
> Once the intensity of a sound at a certain frequency drops below a certai=
n
> level, it not audible. It may still have an infinite number of different
> intensities and as long as they are all below the threshold, they can't b=
e
> heard. Therefore there is ancient (> 60 years old) peer-reviewed evidence
> that measures different does not necessarily mean sounds different.
>
> There is more than a little evidence (It is in the Clark JAES
> (Peer-reviewed) ABX article), that equipment whose frequency response
> measures different but is otherwise =A0similar enough does not sound
> different.
>
> The recent JAES article that shows that a 16/44 link can be interposed in=
an
> excellent playback system with a so-called high resolution source (DVD-A,
> SACD) without detection shows that the changes in measured performance
> caused by the 16/44 link (which are many!) has no audible effect.

But you have not corolated this with the total measured performance of
the vast array of amplifiers out there while driving any of the vast
array of speaker loads that could come into play. So you really
haven't offered anything scientific here that supports the belief in
amplifier transparency.

>
> So there you go Scott - 3 peer reviewed papers, one 60 years old, one 30
> years old and one 3 years old, =A0that falsify your claim. They have all =
stood
> the test of time.
>
> Dismiss that!

Just did. No direct relevance or corolation to amplifier transparency.

next

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
> (in article >):

> This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook
> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
> different amplifiers in different ways.

First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switchmode
power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
similarly largely disqualified.

There is no doubt that different loads affect differerent amplifiers in
different ways. However, the different effects have to be large enough to
make an audible difference. With good SS amplifiers, that is easier said
than done.

> Also, anybody who
> thinks that different amplifiers don't handle low bass in
> vastly different ways isn't really paying attention.

Far more true in the past than now. Low frequency performance has long been
a strength of SS amplifiers. Large variations in this area disappeared when
output coupling capacitors went away.


>> Even if you could establish transparency that would only
>> be relevant for that amp/speaker combination as there
>> are obvious interactions that would disallow
>> extrapolation to another combination so I don't see any
>> significance of such a test.

The above is wild speculation without adequate detailed technical support.

> Again, you make a good point. differences in damping
> factor alone can account for amps sounding a bit
> different on a single loudspeaker system.

If any of you had ever looked at the output impedances of SS amps versus
frequency, you would know that they are generally very good in this regard.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:02:07 -0700, ,
wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:56:36 -0700, dsr wrote:
>
>> [ Some time ago, the moderators decided not to accept articles from
>> Audio Empire until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that
>> he works for.
>
> I apologize for my misstatement here. The moderators decided not to
> accept articles from Audio Empire *that* *discuss* *audio* *publications*
> until such time as he divulges the magazine(s) that he works for.
>
> -dsr- for r.a.h-e moderators
>

No problem, apology accepted.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:37:29 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
>> (in article >):
>
>> This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook
>> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
>> different amplifiers in different ways.
>
> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
> transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switchmode
> power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
> similarly largely disqualified.

They are disqualified as far as I'm concerned. Some tube amps sound very
musical and extremely good. Others.... not so much.
>
> There is no doubt that different loads affect differerent amplifiers in
> different ways. However, the different effects have to be large enough to
> make an audible difference. With good SS amplifiers, that is easier said
> than done.
>
>> Also, anybody who
>> thinks that different amplifiers don't handle low bass in
>> vastly different ways isn't really paying attention.
>
> Far more true in the past than now. Low frequency performance has long been
> a strength of SS amplifiers. Large variations in this area disappeared when
> output coupling capacitors went away.

I agree with that.

>
>>> Even if you could establish transparency that would only
>>> be relevant for that amp/speaker combination as there
>>> are obvious interactions that would disallow
>>> extrapolation to another combination so I don't see any
>>> significance of such a test.
>
> The above is wild speculation without adequate detailed technical support.
>
>> Again, you make a good point. differences in damping
>> factor alone can account for amps sounding a bit
>> different on a single loudspeaker system.
>
> If any of you had ever looked at the output impedances of SS amps versus
> frequency, you would know that they are generally very good in this regard.

I suspect that they are.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 17, 6:37=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
> > (in article >):
> > This is a good point, I think. =A0Also we cannot overlook
> > the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
> > different amplifiers in different ways.
>
> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
> transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switchmod=
e
> power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
> similarly largely disqualified.
>

Sorry but tube amplifers are amplifiers. OTL amplifiers are in fact
amplifiers as well. Ultimately where this will lead is to the
conclusion that all amplifiers are transparent except the ones that
are not transparent. And that is a point I will concede even though it
is a useless truism. After all it is what it is. Either it is or it
isn't. You either know it or you don't. It always works that way
except when it doesn't. etc etc etc. Any given amplifier is
transparent unless it isn't transparent,

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
> On Apr 17, 6:37 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>> This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook
>>> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
>>> different amplifiers in different ways.
>> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
>> transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switchmode
>> power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
>> similarly largely disqualified.
>>
>
> Sorry but tube amplifers are amplifiers. OTL amplifiers are in fact
> amplifiers as well. Ultimately where this will lead is to the
> conclusion that all amplifiers are transparent except the ones that
> are not transparent.

Nooone claimed otherwise. You are/were creating a strawman to shot. And
you miss the other part, that such amplifiers do exist and are in fact
common.

> And that is a point I will concede even though it
> is a useless truism.

It's not useless. When you take complete statement of a fact, that
transparent amplifiers do exist and are in fact coommon, then it shows you
you can (easily) find transparent amplifier.

> After all it is what it is. Either it is or it
> isn't. You either know it or you don't. It always works that way
> except when it doesn't. etc etc etc. Any given amplifier is
> transparent unless it isn't transparent,
>

Misrepresentations of what other discuss noted.

\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 18, 7:52=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 6:37 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
> >>> (in article >):
> >>> This is a good point, I think. =A0Also we cannot overlook
> >>> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
> >>> different amplifiers in different ways.
> >> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
> >> transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switch=
mode
> >> power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
> >> similarly largely disqualified.
>
> > Sorry but tube amplifers are amplifiers. OTL amplifiers are in fact
> > amplifiers as well. Ultimately where this will lead is to the
> > conclusion that all amplifiers are transparent except the ones that
> > are not transparent.
>
> Nooone claimed otherwise.

Um, this was a response to the assertion that tube amplifiers and OTL
in particular were disqualified form the discussion about amplifier
transparency.

> You are/were creating a strawman to shot.

Then why were you arguing with it?

> And
> you miss the other part, that such amplifiers do exist and are in fact
> common.

Well that is not a point I have conceded. I have only conceded the
useless truism that all amplifiers are transparent except the one>s
that are not.

>
> > And that is a point I will concede even though it
> > is a useless truism.
>
> It's not useless.

Well there we disagree.

> When you take complete statement of a fact, that
> transparent amplifiers do exist and are in fact coommon, then it shows yo=
u
> you can (easily) find transparent amplifier.

That isn't what I said. That is what you are now saying. Sorry you
just changed what I was saying is a useless truism. That is a burning
strawman.


>
> > After all it is what it is. Either it is or it
> > isn't. You either know it or you don't. It always works that way
> > except when it doesn't. etc etc etc. Any given amplifier is
> > transparent unless it isn't transparent,
>
> Misrepresentations of what other discuss noted.


How can they be misrepresentations when they are not even
representations? The above is what *I* said, that is until you tried
to change it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Apr 17, 6:37 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>> This is a good point, I think. Also we cannot overlook
>>> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
>>> different amplifiers in different ways.
>>
>> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed
>> amplifiers with output transformers are pretty must
>> disqualified from this discussion. Switchmode power
>> amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their
>> outputs are similarly largely disqualified.

> Sorry but tube amplifers are amplifiers.

Seems obvious. Some of them may even be transparent with many loudspeakers.

> OTL amplifiers are in fact amplifiers as well.

Seems obvious. What is not so obvious is the fact that many OTL tubed power
amps provide relatively high source impedances as well.

> Ultimately where this
> will lead is to the conclusion that all amplifiers are
> transparent except the ones that are not transparent.

A truism that ignores many facts about how to detect that an amplifier is
not transparent without directly testing it for transparency.

> And that is a point I will concede even though it is a useless truism.

We can do better. By better I mean that we can set up limits for measurable
parameters what are good predictors of amplifier transparancy.

> After all it is what it is.

Interesting that you make up a truism that ignores many facts and then
direct us to ignore it.

This is what, argument by means of distraction? ;-)

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:49:54 -0700, ScottW wrote
(in article >):

> On Apr 18, 4:56=A0pm, Scott > wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 7:52=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
>> > wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> On Apr 17, 6:37 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:25 -0700, ScottW wrote
>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>> This is a good point, I think. =A0Also we cannot overlook
>>>>>> the possibility that different loads MIGHT affect
>>>>>> different amplifiers in different ways.
>>>>> First off, tubed amplifiers, particularly tubed amplifiers with output
>>>>> transformers are pretty must disqualified from this discussion. Switchmode
>>>>> power amplifiers with low pass filter networks at their outputs are
>>>>> similarly largely disqualified.
>>
>>>> Sorry but tube amplifers are amplifiers. OTL amplifiers are in fact
>>>> amplifiers as well. Ultimately where this will lead is to the
>>>> conclusion that all amplifiers are transparent except the ones that
>>>> are not transparent.
>>
>>> Nooone claimed otherwise.
>>
>> Um, this was a response to the assertion that tube amplifiers and OTL
>> in particular were disqualified form the discussion about amplifier
>> transparency.
>
> I think he said tube amps with transformers are disqualified. Not OTL
> amps.
>
> I would agree that many tube amps are not transparent (which by no
> means disqualifies them as a satisfying option) but some to my ears
> seem to be little different in sound than a SS amp which kind of begs
> the question, why bother?
>
> ScottW


Well, if you LIKE that sound..... The audio hobby is not about
"transparency", when transparency doesn't remind the listener of the
sound of live music playing in his/her listening room. Reason? The
word transparency doesn't mean the same thing as the phrase "realistic
sounding". at least it doesn't to everybody. so in those cases, amps
and perhaps speakers that sound a little "better" than real are the
order of the day. IOW, there's no accounting for taste. 8^)