my italics.
JC, I suggested John Atkinson & the Dynamic Duo as neutral 3rd parties and described an ABC test earlier in this thread, inviting you to enter Blowtorch as a contender. Your insistence that "A is always A etc" is of course, fundamental to this test.
Can you run through the details again just to make sure there is nothing that might hide the unique strengths of Blowtorch? The other 2 presentations will remain secret until after all listeners have been tested but are likely to include an evil 4558 and possibly a repeat of one of the above.
The results will of course be published in Stereophile and other media.
Can you make a firm commitment to this test in plain English so all of us will be in no doubt that you will do your best to facilitate this?
Don't want any retractions at the last minute as with the Hirata & Quan tests. The logistics are non-trivial.
If you feel John At, Stan & JV are insufficiently neutral, please suggest alternatives but these will have to be vetted and I'd like SL & JV to stand in as observers and comment too if they are unacceptable to supervise the test. Everyone involved must be happy all products have the best chance of performing at their best. I would very much like JA to be one of the listeners as he belongs to a VERY select group with proven golden pinnae.
I chose Blowtorch out of all your superb designs as IMHO, it has the best chance of a NOT getting a NULL result so will further enhance your exalted reputation.
It's not the neutral 3rd parties that decide one is 'better' than the other. Its the results of the tests. ABC rather than ABX or AB cos its easier to get statistical significance fast from limited tests and also to weed out the pseudo Golden Pinnae.
Last edited:
Not so sure: We had tried this joke near a well known reviewer, during the listening session with some real other preamps.
The wire was not the winner, according to his notes
We were not in so good relationship with him, after having revealed the trickery
I can see where the wire could be at fault if it did not buffer the output impedance of the volume control feeding a power amp directly.
Christophe, the trouble with comparisons is that the result is highly dependent on the maximum level of performance of the system in its current status. Not talking about about you've achieved personally, but if someone's setup is only capable of say, 80% of its potentional at that moment then switching between 2 alternatives may be practically inaudible; whereas, if running at 98% then the differences will be instantly obvious.
I deliberately use very "poor" recordings when doing A vs. B comparisons: the intensity of highlighting of variations then achieved makes the job so much easier ...
Frank
Last edited:
It was not the case, of course. We where connecting directly the low impedance source to the high impedance input of the amps with short wires. Buttons in the preamp where fake (a real preamp with input and outputs disconnected, then input cabled directly to outputs.
In fact, people can prefer added distortions, specially pair ones, or non linearities witch can compensate source or loudspeakers lacks. That is all the question about "Sounding best".
In the Blind ABC test that JC has asked for takers (at least I hope he doesn't welsh out again like his previous challenges) JC will be personally responsible for setting Blowtorch up with all the ancillaries provided by him lest there is any imputation that evil disbelievers might not use the correct mains lead etc. and so reduce the impact of its scintillating performance. So we may assume that the resulting system will be running at least at 98%, if not 102%.
But when the lights are dimmed, curtain drawn or whatever mechanism to make the test Blind is engaged, he must allow the Dynamic Duo to substitute the evil 4558 or equivalent for Blowtorch without being aware of which is A, B or C.
Of course, within a 'test', ie set of multiple comparisons under the control of the victim', A B & C will remain as they were first allocated. The listener must always be be clearly aware of whether he is listening to A, B or C.
I believe than, when we ear at evidence the sound deterioration produced by a 2N3052 or a TL7202, the sources are good enough in dynamic and bandwidth for you can believe that, if you find an operational amplifier giving near no difference with a wire, it is good enough to listen to this source ? All we care is how dynamic, sound stage, separation, linearity, little details, harshness or distortion are modified...
That's my point, as a sound engineer wanted no deterioration or amelioration of any original message, but i understand why some people can prefer trasfos, or tubes, cleaning the messages for a more agreeable reproduction.
Last edited:
Yes, there are several aspects that need to part of the situation to make it fair to the 'victim':
* Switching must be under the control of the subject, and he must be able to listen for as long as he requires to a particular variation
* Source material must approved, or selected by the subject
* Most importantly, he must be able to state whether the playback standard is sufficiently high in the test configuration, and this be accepted a valid reason for not continuing. In other words, if the quality of playback is only 80% at best in the test environment, then all bets are off ...
IMO ...
Frank
Well, you could always learn, or use, APL ...
Frank
Been there, how about Don Lancaster and his, "Don't bother with a PC write everything in Postscript and the printing is free." I actually have tried that too, Postscript = Reverse Polish C.
Send this to your printer...
%!
10 10 scale 1 setlinecap .4 setlinewidth 0 2 83 {0 2 59 {gsave exch dup 3
1 roll translate rand 1 and 1 eq {90 rotate} if newpath 0 -1 moveto -1 -1
1 0 90 arc 0 1 moveto 1 1 1 180 270 arc stroke grestore} for pop} for
showpage
Last edited:
Everything is a matter of degree. I certainly know myself that the better my system gets, the more easily I can hear external interference being a factor. The better the reproduction, the more fussy I need to be to get the next, newly revealed, layer of the onion, as abraxalito called it, sorted. So, for me, an opamp as substitute for wire may or may not be audible, depending on how "resolving" - a nice weasel word - the system is.
I am perhaps fortunate compared to some, because I have extremely well defined goalposts. I know, because I've experienced it many times, how good sound reproduction can get, and that is the standard, the reference which everything for me is measured against. I have zero interest in comparing 2 versions of 85% sound quality, that is a nothing exercise in boredom. So, I care whether the changes made have moved closer to that notional 100% level. Notional, because it can get better again, but that particular quality is good enough to get the subjective reaction of "it sounds like the real thing" ...
Frank
JC, is this an offer to allow Stereophile & the Dynamic Duo to carry out the Blind ABC test in chez Curl? That's very generous of you.
You will have COMPLETE control over whether you are listening to A, B or C. Only you won't know if you are listening to Blowtorch or evil 4558 or something else.
If this is a welsh .. could you then explain your offer/challenge, to those of us who lack facility in English as she is spoken ...
How do you want to conduct this test? I'm sure the details can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.
There's no (extra) shame in welshing, JC. You've already welshed twice so this would just be the 3rd time and well in keeping with your reputation.
Last edited:
ABSOLUTELY Frank. All your points and more have been key to the Wharfedale Blind Listening tests from very early on.
JC, do you have anything to add to the list of essential requirements?
I'm glad you want the test at your home cos I was afraid you'd demand an O2 free listening room.
May we take it that you consider that playback environment (player, amp, speakers, room, connectors, mains leads etc) at least 98%, maybe even 102% and suitable for conducting listening tests at the highest level?'Victim' is the wrong word. I'd hope to persuade at least 2 of the best ears in the business to take part. JC, any recommendations for true golden pinnae?
Last edited:
Like I would trust anything that came out of Stereophile in a listening test. Those have always been so biased as to be useless in my eyes. Now the actual electrical testing using the AP 1 or 2 I will read and can believe most of what is printed, but Stereophiles subjective testing has always been just that with way to much bias as to interconnects and what color a wire was........... JK on that one. But in reality those test are useless to me.
John,
I do not understand the attack on your preamp. It is a product no longer for sale, was not a large volume production and unless someone wants to volunteer their own personal preamp for that test just leave it alone already. Talking about the topology and why John chose to do what he did and what the basis of those choices would seem more informative than bashing the thing already.
John,
I do not understand the attack on your preamp. It is a product no longer for sale, was not a large volume production and unless someone wants to volunteer their own personal preamp for that test just leave it alone already. Talking about the topology and why John chose to do what he did and what the basis of those choices would seem more informative than bashing the thing already.
I think you don't understand my point Nothing sound like "the real thing". For such a reason that the real thing does not exist. None listen the same thing in a concert hall.
As i said, i'm a sound engineer, the most near the real thing you can imagine. Right ? Original tapes of mine i can compare, listening with the best equipments as possible.
What i said is it is easy to build a preamp, using some current feed-back OPAs, with some care near the power supply, and to get as close to the original as possible. At least with less deterioration than any other part in any system (power amps, enclosures, most of the commercial DACs ).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.