[Arny Krueger]

"Moshe" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:49:34 -0700, William Sommerwerck
wrote:

David Clark's OPINION about what comprises such
testing.

It's a refereed paper, which means that it had the
editorial board of the AES standing behind it.

Oh, I am so impressed. The deaf leading the deaf.


This is a recommendation, not a requirement.

You're clutching at straws. In the academic and
professional worlds, DBTs are the gold standard for
subjective tests.

And what sort of objective, useful information do they
provide?

That same kind of information as any other listening evaluation, only the
listener's prejudices are held in abeyance.

Well for one thing, when done properly, they can be a
very good tool for exposing people who claim they can
hear differences in sound quality when they wrap marbles
around their line cords or magic marker their CD's etc.

Not only that, but when you are comparing a product with a good reputation
to a product with no reputation at all, you can easily leave the reputations
behind and just listen to the music.

[William Sommerwerck]

DBTs reveal what is and is not audible under the conditions of
D-B testing. This may or may not have any relation with what
one hears when one sits down to listen.

Let's try a thought experiment. Set up a system at home, listen for
as long as you like. Weeks even. Include a box with a switch that,
when operated, may or not swap in an alternative component. Give
someone else a key to your house. When you were out, maybe he
visited. Maybe he turned the switch. Maybe it did something.

If your log of "something has changed - even my wife noticed" failed
to correlate, how would you attack the methodology of the experiment?

I wouldn't. In fact, you made my case for me. Perfectly. Thank you.

D-BT is not "science". It is a testing protocol which might or might not be
useful.

[William Sommerwerck]

DBTs reveal what is and is not audible under the
conditions of D-B testing. This may or may not have any
relation with what one hears when one sits down to listen.

DBTs are just like sitting down and listening, except that
listener bias has been removed as a strong influence.

DBT is nothing of the sort. It is a different listening experience.

Next thing, youlll be telling me there's no difference between yoghurt and
mayonnaise. That's not a joke.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:02:22 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It is arguable that, more than any other single person,
J Gordon Holt is responsible for the overall high
quality of modern audio components. He was the first
person to publish a magazine that said, in no uncertain
terms, that there is a difference between good and bad
sound reproduction (the "good" being that which comes
closest to live sound), and that these differences are
not usually measurable. He helped create a market for
better-quality equipment, which in turn made it possible
for designers to improve their products, as there was a
greater chance of selling them.

Which could be rewritten as: "He created the audiophool
market". Neither statement prove anything much.

Speaking as someone who was pretty heavily involved with high end consumer
audio at the time..

I think that saying that J. Gordon Holt created the audiophool market misses
the point. I think he did unintentionally set the stage for the creation of
that market, which was clearly created while he was an important factor in
high end audio.

Saying that J Gordon Holt is responsible for the overall high quality of
modern audio components is a grotesque insult to the thousands of very
creative, skilled, and industrious people who "wrote the plays", "set the
stages", "sold the tickets", and "performed" what Holt critiqued.

Critics and reviewers have their place, but they are not the sole creators
of whole industries and markets no matter what some (ex) reviewers and
critics may sincerily believe.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

D-BT is not "science".

No single element of science is "science".

It is a testing protocol which might or might not be useful.

Audio DBTs have been immensely useful. They have been highly instrumental in
the creation of much of the technology that enables our modern AV industry.
(Well, its our industry if we are currently engaged in it and not sitting on
the sidelines).

There is a small problem with a number of highly vocal wannabees and
foot-draggers don't want to face up to the fact that this isn't the 1980s
any more.

I feel a lot better about selling Ray Dolby on DBTs than I feel bad about
not selling DBTs to the likes of JGH or JA.

BTW I don't even know if Ray Dolby needed selling. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

DBTs reveal what is and is not audible under the
conditions of D-B testing. This may or may not have any
relation with what one hears when one sits down to
listen.

DBTs are just like sitting down and listening, except
that listener bias has been removed as a strong
influence.

DBT is nothing of the sort.

And you base this on how many DBTs you've done yourself?

It is a different listening experience.

Every listening experience is different.

Next thing, youlll be telling me there's no difference
between yoghurt and mayonnaise. That's not a joke.

Williiam, I'm a professional recordist with over a thousand recordings in
the hands of happy clients. I weekly do live sound and recording supporting
up to 50 musicans who are performing for an audience of over 300 who pay an
average of over $30 a head including teens and children. Who are you besides
someone that JA fired a few decades back? ;-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 03:40:59 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Let's try a thought experiment. Set up a system at home, listen for
as long as you like. Weeks even. Include a box with a switch that,
when operated, may or not swap in an alternative component. Give
someone else a key to your house. When you were out, maybe he
visited. Maybe he turned the switch. Maybe it did something.

If your log of "something has changed - even my wife noticed" failed
to correlate, how would you attack the methodology of the experiment?

I wouldn't. In fact, you made my case for me. Perfectly. Thank you.

D-BT is not "science". It is a testing protocol which might or might not be
useful.

Well, what I described is a DB test, though a more laborious one than
is generally found practical. It would be worth setting up, if only
to shut up the True Believers. Except that when results failed to
correlate with their beliefs, they'd of course find a hole to wriggle
through :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

I've learned a lot in this group. Unfortunately, most of it has been the
result of being forced to rethink my beliefs. I've learned almost nothing by
being supplied with accurate, valid explanations, because such are few and
far between.

The most-useful was the extended discussion of AD and DA conversion. There
were several math and philosophical holes in my understanding, which were
filled in, mostly by the doctoral thesis someone supplied. (The repeated
"explanations" that the output of a DAC is analog because the device is
/called/ a digital-to-analog converter had zero influence.)

I sometimes feel like an extra-terrestrial, wondering why humans have
intelligence they don't use. You believe what you read in books or what some
"expert" tells you, without questioning it. You think that because you know
something you understand it.

I've had my semi-annual shot at Arny's misunderstanding of "science". It's
unlikely he'll ever have his "Aha!" moment.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 06:58:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Williiam, I'm a professional recordist with over a thousand recordings in
the hands of happy clients. I weekly do live sound and recording supporting
up to 50 musicans who are performing for an audience of over 300 who pay an
average of over $30 a head including teens and children. Who are you besides
someone that JA fired a few decades back? ;-)

....er....what the congregation put in the collection plate doesn't
really say anything about the audio or musical quality they're
getting! We all know you're working in an environment where
intention is valued way above results, and that the only sample of
your work we've ever heard is pretty bad both musically and
technically. Waving your "professional credentials" around is a risky
game.

[William Sommerwerck]

Williiam, I'm a professional recordist with over a thousand recordings
in the hands of happy clients. I weekly do live sound and recording
supporting up to 50 musicans who are performing for an audience
of over 300 who pay an average of over $30 a head including teens
and children. Who are you besides someone that JA fired a few
decades back? ;-)

Not funny. Who are you but someone who's repeatedly lied about his
accomplishments and published papers? Ask JA, who's had to rebut your claims
on several occasions.

You have never given a straight answer to any of my difficult questions.
Because you don't know them. (In fairness, no one does.)

Have you ever stood up in front of a manufacturer and called him a liar? I
have. (The head of Micro Acoustics, if it's of any interest.) My only regret
as a reviewer is, after having been insulted to my face by Peter Aczel ("I
didn't know they let people like you in here."), I didn't go over and start
smashing his speakers. I refrained partly because I didn't want to embarrass
Gordon, but more because I didn't want a felony arrest on my police record.

I quit Stereophile after a startling listening experience in which I
discovered just how appallingly unreliable short-term subjective testing
was. I no longer felt I was a reliable reviewer. * (I'm still not sure.)
John will tell you that he fired me because I accepted bribes from
manufacturers. Not true. (JA's memory is the most-flexible of any human I've
ever known.)

In case you're not aware of it, bribery is common. The simplest form is the
availability of accommodation purchases. These allow reviewers to purchase
equipment for (usually) 50% of retail. The reviewer can sell it after a year
or so, often making a profit. Although accommodation purchases are also to
the advantage of the manufacturer, they do slightly distort the reviewing
process. **

Another form of bribery is the long-term loan, which JA strongly encouraged.
The argument is that if you feel a product is of reference quality, you
should have a sample for comparison. Nothing wrong with that, but these
loans often turn into ownership, especially as products are discontinued. I
possess a JVC hall synthesizer, plus STAX headphones, amplifier, and
equalizer that were obtained under these conditions. Shure was also nice to
me over the years, probably because I gave their surround processors the
rave reviews they deserved. ***

Yet another form of bribery is the factory junket, in which the manufacturer
pays most or all of the expenses. These exist primarily to impress the
reviewer, and should probably be verboten. What should definitely be
prohibited is allowing reviewers to bring along wives or family. True, the
reviewer usually pays for their fare and accommodations. However, few
reviewers are wealthy, and these junkets make possible a relatively
inexpensive vacation or getaway that might otherwise not be affordable.

* The fact that the amount of money I was paid for the amount of time I
spent on a review was insufficient. I was also not pleased when I trashed
the AKG K1000 headphones, and John told me that my FFT measurements proving
that their design was defective were probably wrong. "How close were you to
the wall?" JA is not much-interested in the truth. Like you, he would make a
lousy scientist.

** For obvious psychological reasons, you should not review what you own, or
vice versa.

*** I also have Yamaha orthodynamic headphones. Yamaha wouldn't take them
back, apparently for health reasons. It's a shame they aren't made any more.

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 03:40:59 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

DBTs reveal what is and is not audible under the conditions of
D-B testing. This may or may not have any relation with what
one hears when one sits down to listen.

Let's try a thought experiment. Set up a system at home, listen for
as long as you like. Weeks even. Include a box with a switch that,
when operated, may or not swap in an alternative component. Give
someone else a key to your house. When you were out, maybe he
visited. Maybe he turned the switch. Maybe it did something.

If your log of "something has changed - even my wife noticed" failed
to correlate, how would you attack the methodology of the experiment?

I wouldn't. In fact, you made my case for me. Perfectly. Thank you.

D-BT is not "science". It is a testing protocol which might or might not be
useful.

You keep moving the goal posts.
I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

IOW take one of these "Golden Eared" audiophile's, put him in a
room with the sources and see if he can in a statistically
significant manner, choose one source over the other.

You may have to set out some traps to catch one of them though and
physically drag him or her to the testing site because those
types, I call them "Stereophiles" after the magazine name, are
difficult to catch and pin down when it comes down to fish or
cutting bait.

For the record, I'm more along the lines of if differences can
heard,under a specific set of conditions, they can most likely be
measured.

Ethan Winer has a couple of threads going over on Gearslutz that
are similar to this one. Very interesting reading, not that I
agree with everything Ethan proposes.

[William Sommerwerck]

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you normally listen.


IOW take one of these "Golden Eared" audiophile's, put him
in a room with the sources and see if he can in a statistically
significant manner, choose one source over the other.

I'd be delighted to do it. Just let me pick the equipment to be tested.

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series amplifier, and a Crown
K-series amplifier. I will provide a Parasound A-series amplifier. They
sound so different from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which, /without/
comparing them, simply from my description of their sound characteristics.

I'll list those characteristics here... The Krell produces a very wide and
deep soundfield, with a lot of "space". It's liquid-sounding, and has the
"slamming" bass many people describe as characteristic of Krell amplifiers.
JGH might have described as having an unnaturally "backed-off" midrange.

The Parasound is noticeably "flatter", with rather less depth and space. It
is "drier", and not so liquid. The bass is less euphonically emphatic. There
also seems to be a bit more detail, though this might be the side-effect

The Crown amplifier sounds like dog feces. It's coarse and hashy sounding.
You don't need to compare it with anything to hear how bad it is.

Note that these amplifiers were designed by three of the most-famous (and
respected) designers in the history of high-end audio -- Dan D'Agostino,
John Curl, and Gerry Stanley, respectively. And they sound different.


For the record, I'm more along the lines of if differences can
heard, under a specific set of conditions, they can most likely
be measured.

Of course. If something is audible, it /has/ to be measurable.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:48:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you normally listen.

I've just offered you a D-BT method that suits your normal listening
habits perfectly. You're arguing as if the implementation of D-BT is
set in stone. It isn't.

[William Sommerwerck]

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you normally listen.

I've just offered you a D-BT method that suits your normal listening
habits perfectly. You're arguing as if the implementation of D-BT is
set in stone. It isn't.

But everybody /else/ to seem to think it is. I have /long/ argued for
long-term (weeks or months) D-BT, under "living-room" conditions. No one
wants to do such tests, because they're too complex and expensive.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:54:01 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you normally listen.

I've just offered you a D-BT method that suits your normal listening
habits perfectly. You're arguing as if the implementation of D-BT is
set in stone. It isn't.

But everybody /else/ to seem to think it is. I have /long/ argued for
long-term (weeks or months) D-BT, under "living-room" conditions. No one
wants to do such tests, because they're too complex and expensive.


Well, say so then! You've wasted an entire thread arguing against a
narrow definition which you don't agree with, and you have no way of
knowing whether we do either!

"I don't like shoes"
.....long argument....
"Well, of course I only meant GREEN shoes!"

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 07:48:50 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

You keep moving the goal posts. I never said it was a science.
I simply claimed it is a method that can be useful for determining
what some people claim to hear and in a setting that is as
unbiased as possible.

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you normally listen.

Laurence suggested a variation which does simulate the way you
listen.
The longer you perform the experiment, the more accurate the
results should be.


IOW take one of these "Golden Eared" audiophile's, put him
in a room with the sources and see if he can in a statistically
significant manner, choose one source over the other.

I'd be delighted to do it. Just let me pick the equipment to be tested.

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series amplifier, and a Crown
K-series amplifier. I will provide a Parasound A-series amplifier. They
sound so different from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which, /without/
comparing them, simply from my description of their sound characteristics.
Maybe you can.
Maybe you can't.
I dunno.

If they measure differently, you probably can hear a difference.
I don't particularly like the sound of Crown amplifiers, but you
can drop one from the back of a truck and they will probably still
function.
Irrelevant to the discussion however.



I'll list those characteristics here... The Krell produces a very wide and
deep soundfield, with a lot of "space". It's liquid-sounding, and has the
"slamming" bass many people describe as characteristic of Krell amplifiers.
JGH might have described as having an unnaturally "backed-off" midrange.

Why do I feel like I am reading Stereophile here?


The Parasound is noticeably "flatter", with rather less depth and space. It
is "drier", and not so liquid. The bass is less euphonically emphatic. There
also seems to be a bit more detail, though this might be the side-effect

The Crown amplifier sounds like dog feces. It's coarse and hashy sounding.
You don't need to compare it with anything to hear how bad it is.

Note that these amplifiers were designed by three of the most-famous (and
respected) designers in the history of high-end audio -- Dan D'Agostino,
John Curl, and Gerry Stanley, respectively. And they sound different.


Do they measure differently in a significant manner?
If so, you have your answer.

BTW how does one measure, "flatter, drier and liquid" ?

I'm a little behind the times as they still taught tubes when I
was in college earning my BSEE, but have things changed that much?



For the record, I'm more along the lines of if differences can
heard, under a specific set of conditions, they can most likely
be measured.

Of course. If something is audible, it /has/ to be measurable.

Ahh, but you are assuming that the person, looking at the unit and
it's fancy brand is actually hearing a difference.
That's where the DBT is useful.

I used to sell high end equipment in various NYC audio salons back
in the 1970's and in fact it put me through engineering school.

Some of that gear easily cost more than an automobile at the time
and we had no problem unloading, errr, selling it.

In fact we didn't even have to sell it because the high end
magazines at the time did it for us. These stores were real smart
in that they had a very liberal exchange policy and like clock
work as soon as a new piece of gear was tested by the Stereophile
type magazines, the suckers, errr, customers, would be lined up at
the door wanting to exchange last month's "star of the show".

They swore they could hear differences and there was no trickery
going on at the store.

After hours the staff used to sit in the A room and compare gear
as we were all gear nuts as well.
Funny thing was, the more wine and cheese we scarfed down, the
more we "heard" differences between the gear.

Those were fun days.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:24:31 -0400, Moshe
wrote:

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series amplifier, and a Crown
K-series amplifier. I will provide a Parasound A-series amplifier. They
sound so different from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which, /without/
comparing them, simply from my description of their sound characteristics.
Maybe you can.
Maybe you can't.
I dunno.

If they measure differently, you probably can hear a difference.

I don't particularly like the sound of Crown amplifiers, but you
can drop one from the back of a truck and they will probably still
function.

Ok, so you confirm there is a "sound" of the Crown. What about the
other two?

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:34:44 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:24:31 -0400, Moshe
wrote:

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series amplifier, and a Crown
K-series amplifier. I will provide a Parasound A-series amplifier. They
sound so different from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which, /without/
comparing them, simply from my description of their sound characteristics.
Maybe you can.
Maybe you can't.
I dunno.

If they measure differently, you probably can hear a difference.

I don't particularly like the sound of Crown amplifiers, but you
can drop one from the back of a truck and they will probably still
function.

Ok, so you confirm there is a "sound" of the Crown. What about the
other two?

Some Crown amplifiers yes.
Not all of them. I should have been more specific.

The PSA series in particular.

I suspect it will be able to be measured as well which is my
point.

Haven't heard on in years though although the last gig I did a
couple of weeks ago was using one for the sub cabinet, I think.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

philicorda wrote:
I've always been of the opinion that there should not be an obvious
audible difference between recording at 44.1 and 96Khz. When I have
experimented with average converters, both sound fairly similar.

But... the other day a friend brought in a Sony PCM-D50 and claimed there
was a huge difference at 96K. We tried a few bind tests using the
internal mics on voice and piano, and sure enough the 96Khz sounded
obviously 'better'. Clearer, more present etc.

The listening setup was nothing special, a Teac A-X3000 amplifier and
Tannoy Mercury MX2 speakers in an average living room.

I'm not totally convinced that the extra bandwidth should make so much
difference, so what else might be going on, and how can I test for it?

You probably want to do the usual measures of frequency response - white
noise, swept tones, individual octave tones ( 1k, 2k, 4k,
8k, 16k ). Hopefully, you can go around the microphones.

Being able to separate the recorded waveform from the signal
as played back would be a good thing. I see it has something like
USB connectivity, which should help with that.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 14 May 2010 09:39:39 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You might. Try a Panasonic SV-3700 and listen to the difference between
44.1 ksamp/sec and 48 ksamp/sec operation.... they use the same anti-aliasing
filters for both and there is substantial aliasing at 44.1. Mind you, it
sounds dreadful at 48, but it sounds even worse at 44.1. The effect is not
subtle.

But in this case what you are hearing is not the difference between
44.1 and 96kHz, but the difference between a good and a poor
implementation. To be useful, the test should use exemplary
implementations of both.

We have had good tests with exemplary implementations, which did not show
audible differences.

However, the original poster can hear audible differences. Therefore,
we attribute his problem to a poor implementation.

This is why he asks the original questions that started the thread: just
what precisely is poor about his implementation? How can he measure the
problem effectively? And what should he do about it?

I can't answer any of these yet. Can you? They are valid and important
questions.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Moshe wrote:
Ok, so you confirm there is a "sound" of the Crown. What about the
other two?

Some Crown amplifiers yes.
Not all of them. I should have been more specific.

The PSA series in particular.

I suspect it will be able to be measured as well which is my
point.

Dunno about the PSA, but the PS1 has a crossover distortion issue at low
levels and slew rate issues at high levels. Hopefully things have improved
since then (although the D75 makes me suspect they have not).

On the other hand the MacroTechs sound pretty clean.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is why he asks the original questions that started the thread:
just what precisely is poor about his implementation? How can he
measure the problem effectively? And what should he do about it?

Testing border-conditions can be a fruitful strategy, so how about testing
its frequency response near upper cut-off for peakyness and testing how it
behaves when provoked with tones that may cause aliasing. That ought to be
reasonably simple and repeatable.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I can't answer any of these yet. Can you? They are valid and
important questions.
--scott

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 15 May 2010 13:34:51 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 14 May 2010 09:39:39 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You might. Try a Panasonic SV-3700 and listen to the difference between
44.1 ksamp/sec and 48 ksamp/sec operation.... they use the same anti-aliasing
filters for both and there is substantial aliasing at 44.1. Mind you, it
sounds dreadful at 48, but it sounds even worse at 44.1. The effect is not
subtle.

But in this case what you are hearing is not the difference between
44.1 and 96kHz, but the difference between a good and a poor
implementation. To be useful, the test should use exemplary
implementations of both.

We have had good tests with exemplary implementations, which did not show
audible differences.

However, the original poster can hear audible differences. Therefore,
we attribute his problem to a poor implementation.

This is why he asks the original questions that started the thread: just
what precisely is poor about his implementation? How can he measure the
problem effectively? And what should he do about it?

I can't answer any of these yet. Can you? They are valid and important
questions.

I'm not sure I can summon as much interest in the question "why does a
poor implementation sound bad?" as I could about the 44.1/96kHz
question, if it could indeed be shown to reveal differences.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series
amplifier, and a Crown K-series amplifier. I will provide
a Parasound A-series amplifier. They sound so different
from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which,
/without/ comparing them, simply from my description of
their sound characteristics.

OK, so these are the only 3 power amps in the world that actually sound
different.

I can live with that!

why would I care?

I dunno, maybe one or more of them has some kind of serious technical flaw.

I've never said that all amplifiers sound different. Of course they don't
all sound different. Some are broke, some are bad designs.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you
normally listen.

Non sequitor.

The fallacy is that any method of listening that does not exactly duplicate
some personal methodology of yours is for sure biased.

The fact is that there are any number of variations on the basic process of
listening that are in fact far more unbiased than your sighted evaluations.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Williiam, I'm a professional recordist with over a
thousand recordings in the hands of happy clients. I
weekly do live sound and recording supporting up to 50
musicans who are performing for an audience
of over 300 who pay an average of over $30 a head
including teens
and children. Who are you besides someone that JA fired
a few
decades back? ;-)

Not funny.

But true.

Who are you but someone who's repeatedly lied
about his accomplishments and published papers?

What lies?

Ask JA, who's had to rebut your claims on several occasions.

I have no idea about that. Its a free country, he can say what he wants to
say. If I don't know about it, I pay it no mind.

You have never given a straight answer to any of my
difficult questions.

I am unaware of that.

Because you don't know them. (In fairness, no one does.)

More like I don't know what the questions are.

Have you ever stood up in front of a manufacturer and
called him a liar?

Name calling is not one of those things that I want to hang my hat on.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message


You believe what
you read in books or what some "expert" tells you,
without questioning it. You think that because you know
something you understand it.


Prove it.

[William Sommerwerck]

But D-BT is not unbiased, because it isn't the way you
normally listen.

Non sequitor.

The fallacy is that any method of listening that does not exactly
duplicate some personal methodology of yours is for sure biased.

No, I am going by "science" -- the test procedures have to match the
real-world conditions. The type of D-BT you advocate does not.


The fact is that there are any number of variations on the basic process
of
listening that are in fact far more unbiased than your sighted
evaluations.

Even other people here, Arny, understand that you can have D-BT that matches
the way one usually listens. You've never acknowledged that, because you're
afraid that it would produce different results from those you obtained. It
might, it might not. The only way to find out is to do it.

[William Sommerwerck]

You believe what you read in books or what some "expert"
tells you, without questioning it. You think that because
you know something you understand it.

Prove it.

The fact that I raise points or ask questions, and (almost) always fail to
get a clear, coherent answer proves it.

There is a difference between knowing and understanding. I might be many
things, but I am not guilty of confusing the two.

[Moshe]

On 15 May 2010 13:39:09 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Moshe wrote:
Ok, so you confirm there is a "sound" of the Crown. What about the
other two?

Some Crown amplifiers yes.
Not all of them. I should have been more specific.

The PSA series in particular.

I suspect it will be able to be measured as well which is my
point.

Dunno about the PSA, but the PS1 has a crossover distortion issue at low
levels and slew rate issues at high levels. Hopefully things have improved
since then (although the D75 makes me suspect they have not).

On the other hand the MacroTechs sound pretty clean.
--scott

A band I used to play with used the PSA with both EAW (before they
were stolen) and later JBL cabinets and I never liked the sound of
those amps. Maybe it was the speaker/amplifier combination, maybe
it was me I really don't know but it just did not sound right with
my keyboards going through them.

Brittle is the best description I can come up with.

I'm convinced, measurements would show faults in these amps.

Board was a "vintage, at least these days" Yamaha analog board
which had a wonderful. smooth sound to it. Effects were all dbx
and Lexicon.

When my Bryston 4b (home system) developed a problem and needed
servicing, the shop loaned me a Crown Microtech (not Macro)
because I was having a party that weekend and that's all they had
around.

It sounded fine hooked to my KeF 105 speakers.
Maybe a little to much partying, but I really never noticed a
difference.

Bryston repaired the unit free of charge BTW.

All this is totally and completely subjective of course.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

I'm not sure I can summon as much interest in the question "why does a
poor implementation sound bad?" as I could about the 44.1/96kHz
question, if it could indeed be shown to reveal differences.

So, rather than answer the original poster's question, you'd rather answer
a different and possibly unrelated one?

In fact, the question about why a poor implementation sounds bad is actually
a very interesting one, because it's the converse of asking what makes a
good implementation sound good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:50:46 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

I'll be specific. You provide a Krell KSA-series
amplifier, and a Crown K-series amplifier. I will provide
a Parasound A-series amplifier. They sound so different
from each other, I can quickly and easily distinguish
them. In fact, /you/ will be able to tell which is which,
/without/ comparing them, simply from my description of
their sound characteristics.

OK, so these are the only 3 power amps in the world that actually sound
different.

I can live with that!

why would I care?

I dunno, maybe one or more of them has some kind of serious technical flaw.

I've never said that all amplifiers sound different. Of course they don't
all sound different. Some are broke, some are bad designs.

I agree.

Basically, and simplistically maybe, what I am saying is that if
users can hear a difference, measurements will reveal a
difference.

Combinations of amps and speakers are the first place to look.
Esoteric cabling is another place.
etc.

Some people just have better ears than others.
My significant other has ears like a cat.

Can't tell a good tune from a bad one though....

[Moshe]

On 15 May 2010 17:24:41 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I'm not sure I can summon as much interest in the question "why does a
poor implementation sound bad?" as I could about the 44.1/96kHz
question, if it could indeed be shown to reveal differences.

So, rather than answer the original poster's question, you'd rather answer
a different and possibly unrelated one?

In fact, the question about why a poor implementation sounds bad is actually
a very interesting one, because it's the converse of asking what makes a
good implementation sound good.
--scott

Personally I love it when a knowledgeable person, like yourself
Scott, comes along and posts something like "xxyyzz converters are
bad because aabbcc is a poor design" because at least this way, if
I have indeed been hearing something that maybe I don't like, I
have some kind of starting point for data to back up my claims, or
my ranting's, frustrations etc.

There are a zillion reasons why one piece of gear can sound better
than another, but my basic POV is that if a piece of gear can be
statistically picked as better, or different from another piece of
gear, even if by a single person, then either the testing set up
is flawed, the ancillary gear (cables, speakers etc) favors one
piece of gear, or the differences can be measured and in the case
of cables, speakers etc this too can be measured although not
quite as easily.

It's tough being schooled as an engineer yet being a musician at
the same time.

[William Sommerwerck]

Basically, and simplistically maybe, what I am saying
is that if users can hear a difference, measurements
will reveal a difference.

To paraphrase Mozart... Which mesurements would you have me make?

25 years ago, I asked JA to take me on as (in effect) Stereophile's
technical editor. As was and is his wont, he instantly refused. Had he not
done so, we might have made some progress. But objective testing with
more-or-less sure answers does not sell audiophile magazines.

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:34 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Basically, and simplistically maybe, what I am saying
is that if users can hear a difference, measurements
will reveal a difference.

To paraphrase Mozart... Which mesurements would you have me make?

25 years ago, I asked JA to take me on as (in effect) Stereophile's
technical editor. As was and is his wont, he instantly refused. Had he not
done so, we might have made some progress. But objective testing with
more-or-less sure answers does not sell audiophile magazines.

All your Stereophile baggage aside, and I don't even know what it
is as I must have missed that chapter, but times have changed.

The standard measurements that technology allows.

Frequency response, slew rate, power, distortion, phase etc.

There is always the chance that physics has not caught up with the
human being's abilities, I am not doubting this, however that
would easily be picked up by complete double blind tests.

I read Stereophile and I LMAO.
For me it's like reading Mad Magazine.

Substitute wine for electronic gear, taste for sound and you would
swear you were reading a snobby wine magazine.

Bascomb King is a riot to read.

I'd love to get that cracked pot into a studio with some gear and
a true double blind test.

I'd bet a case of his favorite wine that he couldn't tell the
$10,000 converter from the $100.00 variety in a manner that was
statistically significant.

BTW he doesn't get to look at the labels, nor the price tag before
hand.

Ever notice how these golden eared people suddenly either
disappear or start moving the goal posts when it comes down to
pinning them to the floor with actual, verifiable by independent
sources, tests?

See the Ethan Winer threads in gearslutz for details.

Let's just say I have my doubts.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly wrote:
Kludge writes:
My personal suspicion is that all of the audible differences between high
sample rates have to do with conversion artifacts and extended bandwidth
producing beat notes in the audible band. But by the same token,
if going to a different rate alters the artifacts in a good way, why not
just go with it?

Or even if it just alters the client's expectation of the sound. If the
client thinks it sounds better, that's good enough for me.

And that's really my argument for not having gone the wideband route yet
myself... the customers haven't demanded it. Interestingly, I have had
requests for DSD.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

To paraphrase Mozart... Which measurements would you have me make?
25 years ago, I asked JA to take me on as (in effect) Stereophile's
technical editor. As was and is his wont, he instantly refused. Had he
not
done so, we might have made some progress. But objective testing with
more-or-less sure answers does not sell audiophile magazines.

All your Stereophile baggage aside, and I don't even know what it
is as I must have missed that chapter, but times have changed.

No, they haven't. Nothing has changed in the past 60 years. People are still
arguing over matters of which they have neither practical or philosophical
understanding.


The standard measurements that technology allows.

And how do they correlate with what we hear? What, for example, is the
threshold of harmonic or intermodulation distortion? How does the audibility
of distortion relate to its spectrum or orde?. Can you tell me? If you
can't, ask Arny. He knows /all/ these answers, right?


Frequency response, slew rate, power, distortion, phase, etc.
There is always the chance that physics has not caught up with
the human being's abilities, I am not doubting this, however that
would easily be picked up by complete double blind tests.

Prove it. I say that D-BT, as promoted by its leading adherents (who sell
"scientific" snake oil, but snake oil, nonetheless), is at least incomplete,
and at best grossly misleading. It is true only up to a point. And that
point is rather distantly removed from the as-yet-unknown truth.


I read Stereophile and I LMAO.
For me it's like reading Mad Magazine.

You would have felt differently 45 years ago. "The Stereophile" was founded
by a man who broke away from the mass-market magazines because they were
paid by manufacturers to lie about the quality of their products. They not
only lied about bad products, they lied about good products.

There is a story (which I cannot verify) that states that "High Fidelity"
got very, very nervous when J Gordon Holt wanted to publish a review stating
that the KLH Nine was, overall, the best speaker then available.


Ever notice how these golden-eared people suddenly either
disappear or start moving the goal posts when it comes down
to pinning them to the floor with actual, verifiable by independent
sources, tests?

Which "independent" sources? What verifiable tests? The ones /you/ think are
independent and verifiable? How much audio equipment have you ever sat down
and carefully auditioned? Not much, I suspect, because you're deathly afraid
that you might hear differences. It's so much more-pleasant to use ABX
testing, where all but the grossest differences magically vanish. You're
finally safe, and "science" has rescued you from beliefs that you don't want
to believe. How nice.

I don't have the money to run "proper" tests. And if I did, you wouldn't
have the guts to sit in on them. Nor would Arny nor JA.

[Moshe]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:29:20 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:

To paraphrase Mozart... Which measurements would you have me make?
25 years ago, I asked JA to take me on as (in effect) Stereophile's
technical editor. As was and is his wont, he instantly refused. Had he
not
done so, we might have made some progress. But objective testing with
more-or-less sure answers does not sell audiophile magazines.

All your Stereophile baggage aside, and I don't even know what it
is as I must have missed that chapter, but times have changed.

No, they haven't. Nothing has changed in the past 60 years. People are still
arguing over matters of which they have neither practical or philosophical
understanding.


And yet when pressed for testing, etc the people who make these
claims are often elusive.


The standard measurements that technology allows.

And how do they correlate with what we hear? What, for example, is the
threshold of harmonic or intermodulation distortion? How does the audibility
of distortion relate to its spectrum or orde?. Can you tell me? If you
can't, ask Arny. He knows /all/ these answers, right?

Nobody knows.
However, properly conducted double blind tests go a long way
toward proving or disproving these claims.



Frequency response, slew rate, power, distortion, phase, etc.
There is always the chance that physics has not caught up with
the human being's abilities, I am not doubting this, however that
would easily be picked up by complete double blind tests.

Prove it. I say that D-BT, as promoted by its leading adherents (who sell
"scientific" snake oil, but snake oil, nonetheless), is at least incomplete,
and at best grossly misleading. It is true only up to a point. And that
point is rather distantly removed from the as-yet-unknown truth.

That's funny....

The snake oil is really the people in rags like Stereophile
subscribing to stuff like marbles wrapped around a line cord and
such.

The clue to their idiocy is usually statements like "the
difference was astounding".
Come on already.



I read Stereophile and I LMAO.
For me it's like reading Mad Magazine.

You would have felt differently 45 years ago. "The Stereophile" was founded
by a man who broke away from the mass-market magazines because they were
paid by manufacturers to lie about the quality of their products. They not
only lied about bad products, they lied about good products.

Well I can't go back 45 years, but I can go back to the 70's and
in particular 1973 on....


There is a story (which I cannot verify) that states that "High Fidelity"
got very, very nervous when J Gordon Holt wanted to publish a review stating
that the KLH Nine was, overall, the best speaker then available.

They said the same about the Advent speaker back then.
Next year it was the Allison One.
Then the Dahlquist or whatever that flat speaker was called, I
can't remember.
The year after that it was the ESS and their Heil Air Motion
thing.
Then we moved on to Genesis.....etc...




Ever notice how these golden-eared people suddenly either
disappear or start moving the goal posts when it comes down
to pinning them to the floor with actual, verifiable by independent
sources, tests?

Which "independent" sources? What verifiable tests? The ones /you/ think are
independent and verifiable? How much audio equipment have you ever sat down
and carefully auditioned? Not much, I suspect, because you're deathly afraid
that you might hear differences. It's so much more-pleasant to use ABX
testing, where all but the grossest differences magically vanish. You're
finally safe, and "science" has rescued you from beliefs that you don't want
to believe. How nice.


Are you kidding?
I used to sell the stuff.
The shop I worked at had one of the first ABX comparator kits in
the USA.

The so called "golden ears" were exposed literally 100 percent of
the time.

I spent many hours listening to super high end gear that I
couldn't afford, at the time.

The best I could come up with, was it looks great and the
construction was second to none.


I don't have the money to run "proper" tests. And if I did, you wouldn't
have the guts to sit in on them. Nor would Arny nor JA.


Head on over to Gearslutz and talk to Ethan.
He is doing such a test and is looking for people.

Funny thing is the golden eared people seem to be going into
hiding.

This is typical....

If you know Bascom King personally, ask him to contact Ethan and
let's see if he can pick out a high end Lynx converter from a run
of the mill Delta 1010.

My money is on him failing miserably.
And BTW I don't agree with everything Ethan says...
I am as much a skeptic as you are and that's kool...

[William Sommerwerck]

The standard measurements that technology allows.

And how do they correlate with what we hear? What, for example, is the
threshold of harmonic or intermodulation distortion? How does the
audibility
of distortion relate to its spectrum or orde?. Can you tell me? If you
can't, ask Arny. He knows /all/ these answers, right?

Nobody knows.
However, properly conducted double blind tests go a long way
toward proving or disproving these claims.

This is an unproven assumption. The validity & predictability of D-BT
remains in question.


There is a story (which I cannot verify) that states that "High Fidelity"
got very, very nervous when J Gordon Holt wanted to publish a review
stating
that the KLH Nine was, overall, the best speaker then available.

They said the same about the Advent speaker back then.

No, neither Stereophile nor Absolute Sound said that. Harry Pearson was
rather taken with Double Advents, but to say that he considered it the best
speaker available would be stretching it a bit.

Next year it was the Allison One.
Then the Dahlquist or whatever that flat speaker was called, I
can't remember.
The year after that it was the ESS and their Heil Air Motion
thing. Then we moved on to Genesis.....etc...

Baloney. No audiophile magazine ever said these were "the best". Besides,
you're deliberately ignoring the point.

In the early 60s, there were two speakers that, in terms of accurately
reproducing the signal, could have been considered "the best available".
These were the QUAD ESL-57 and the KLH Nine, both electrostatic. At that
time, these really were terrifically good speakers. There are people today
who consider the ESL-57 the best speaker ever made, and no serious modern
listener would say that it /isn't/ a good speaker. It has kept its high
reputation for 53 years (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), something you cannot say about any
other speaker. * (Don't mention Klipschorns, which have changed quite a bit
in that time.)

Unlike Stereophile, Abso!ute Sound, et al, High Fidelity was frightened at
what might happen if they said "This is almost certainly the best speaker
you can buy." They would likely have lost a lot of advertising.

* I've never heard the A7. I'm sure it's fun to listen to, but how accurate
is it?


Which "independent" sources? What verifiable tests? The ones /you/ think
are
independent and verifiable? How much audio equipment have you ever sat
down
and carefully auditioned? Not much, I suspect, because you're deathly
afraid
that you might hear differences. It's so much more-pleasant to use ABX
testing, where all but the grossest differences magically vanish. You're
finally safe, and "science" has rescued you from beliefs that you don't
want
to believe. How nice.

Are you kidding?
I used to sell the stuff.
The shop I worked at had one of the first ABX comparator kits in
the USA.

The so called "golden ears" were exposed literally 100 percent of
the time.
I spent many hours listening to super high end gear that I
couldn't afford, at the time.
The best I could come up with, was it looks great and the
construction was second to none.

Thank you for confirming that ABX testing masks audible differences!

If you think that, say, Audio Research equipment of that era was sonically
indistinguishable from, say, Crown -- then there is/was something very wrong
with your hearing.

[Stuart Richards]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Sean Conolly wrote:
Kludge writes:
My personal suspicion is that all of the audible differences between high
sample rates have to do with conversion artifacts and extended bandwidth
producing beat notes in the audible band. But by the same token,
if going to a different rate alters the artifacts in a good way, why not
just go with it?

Or even if it just alters the client's expectation of the sound. If the
client thinks it sounds better, that's good enough for me.

And that's really my argument for not having gone the wideband route yet
myself... the customers haven't demanded it. Interestingly, I have had
requests for DSD.

DSD? In that case I'd love to know if you've heard the Grimm Audio AD1:
http://www.grimmaudio.com/pro_converters_ad1.htm