A question.
I always stop short of saying Bose use hype. I think they obviously know something if only how to sell. Are they very bad people or are we dishonest and their science is correct? I speak of now more than the past and 901's. I have no idea myself. As they do direct sale I have no reliable person I can ask. They have always presented their work as truly understanding how we hear. How they say unsupportable facts would interest me. I have a horrible feeling they might win this one? Hearing some modern PA speakers of theirs last week left me bemused. Excellent was not the first word that came to mind.
Well done John Curl for saying he trusts his ears. You have to in this game.
I always stop short of saying Bose use hype. I think they obviously know something if only how to sell. Are they very bad people or are we dishonest and their science is correct? I speak of now more than the past and 901's. I have no idea myself. As they do direct sale I have no reliable person I can ask. They have always presented their work as truly understanding how we hear. How they say unsupportable facts would interest me. I have a horrible feeling they might win this one? Hearing some modern PA speakers of theirs last week left me bemused. Excellent was not the first word that came to mind.
Well done John Curl for saying he trusts his ears. You have to in this game.
Except that he doesn't. He can only 'hear' a difference if he can see the DUTs and knows which is which. He categorically declines any sort of ears-only controlled tests. Saying is one thing, following through is another.
Jan
I was being encouraging. In an experiment we should at worse have two variables. If we choose to use our ears that is OK as it might simplify our tests. We can use others ears as a control . Important thing is we do tests and strive to improve.
I remember calculating the so called Fibonacci number. {( root / 5 ) +1}/2 = 1.6180339887499 says my $30 Nokia calculator+ camera+ phone. I have an iPhone which I don't use as it isn't as good as my Nokia for easy of use.
I said to my mathematician friend how fascinating to use the predicted sequence to calculate it. He said nonsense. Mostly any two numbers will do as a starting point. The nicer would be 1 and 1000 I found. Mostly it takes 20 calculations to arrive at something slightly inferiour to the easy root 5 solution.
It doesn't really matter how you do it as long as it is an honest process which eliminates error of thinking as it's prime goal. Design is a feedback loop. The ears are not bad diagnostic tools. Oscilloscopes less so and spectrum analyzers invaluable. All three together with a volts meter not bad at all.
I remember calculating the so called Fibonacci number. {( root / 5 ) +1}/2 = 1.6180339887499 says my $30 Nokia calculator+ camera+ phone. I have an iPhone which I don't use as it isn't as good as my Nokia for easy of use.
I said to my mathematician friend how fascinating to use the predicted sequence to calculate it. He said nonsense. Mostly any two numbers will do as a starting point. The nicer would be 1 and 1000 I found. Mostly it takes 20 calculations to arrive at something slightly inferiour to the easy root 5 solution.
It doesn't really matter how you do it as long as it is an honest process which eliminates error of thinking as it's prime goal. Design is a feedback loop. The ears are not bad diagnostic tools. Oscilloscopes less so and spectrum analyzers invaluable. All three together with a volts meter not bad at all.
Let me provide an example.
- LED lights which flicker and LED lights which don't, zero flicker.
You can not visually ABX the difference, since you can not --see-- any difference.
However, you can still --feel-- the difference, since it is interacting with you subliminally.
Whether you believe this statement to be true or not, how would one evidence it?
circular illogic? - how do you know that what you feel is related to the phenom under question
and the flicker is a poor example - motion gives easily objectively rated strobe effects, can even tell hundreds of Hz frame/strobe rates by just fanning your spread fingers in the way of the light source
so staring steadily at a illuminated static point doesn't constitute a valid test now does it?
you can say there are many example tests that are missing important controls or restricting the domain too much - but then you should detail your concerns - and do a controlled, blinded test that addresses them
and the flicker is a poor example - motion gives easily objectively rated strobe effects, can even tell hundreds of Hz frame/strobe rates by just fanning your spread fingers in the way of the light source
so staring steadily at a illuminated static point doesn't constitute a valid test now does it?
you can say there are many example tests that are missing important controls or restricting the domain too much - but then you should detail your concerns - and do a controlled, blinded test that addresses them
Calculate and infinite resistor ladder (R in series, R to ground, ...), 1.6180339887499... Ohms.
Reasonably correct, but NOT very common. Not rare, but not common, I'd estimate just a bit under average usage.
Ah, day by day, there less and less of us perfect ones!
To round it all off, the most common abbreviation of my name is "Deki". In Serbia, if you don't have a nickaname, you either don't exist, or are so worthless that you'd do better not to exist.
Heck, my blood type (A-) is a lot more rare than my name, trust me on this. Over the last 40 years, I have donated my total body blood three time over at least. And I'm a full blooded hoss, I've been told that.
Last edited:
Wow. I love that number. The pyramids seem to relate to the square root base to height.
OK, I have to say something now:
I am accused of all kinds of things, because I refuse to be put into an ABX test that I cannot pass. Heck, I don't do any significant listening tests, anymore, I just operate with what I get from others, and of course, my measurements.
However, because I will not fall for SY's 'challenge', I am called all kinds of things.
Well, a colleague of mine, Ivor T, of LINN, (I have used his turntable for the last 40 years) got drawn into one of these 'tests' with the BAS. He 'failed' their test, (as well as everybody else was expected to do) and they have NEVER let it go. They publish his 'failure' even today, some 30 years later. Think about it, it is like being tried as a 'witch' You are thrown in the water and if you float you are guilty, yet if you sink, you drown. Some choice, huh?
For me, I KNOW that I am not good at ABX type tests. I have known this for decades, as I have seen some people who are better at this. And of course, their input is disregarded by the 'hear no difference' crowd. Yes, the 'failures' are publicized and the 'successes' are ignored. This is because it is not an 'objective' belief behind it. Just the belief that not much matters, and we should not concern ourselves about a bunch of 'details' that are not easily measured or 'proven'.
I am accused of all kinds of things, because I refuse to be put into an ABX test that I cannot pass. Heck, I don't do any significant listening tests, anymore, I just operate with what I get from others, and of course, my measurements.
However, because I will not fall for SY's 'challenge', I am called all kinds of things.
Well, a colleague of mine, Ivor T, of LINN, (I have used his turntable for the last 40 years) got drawn into one of these 'tests' with the BAS. He 'failed' their test, (as well as everybody else was expected to do) and they have NEVER let it go. They publish his 'failure' even today, some 30 years later. Think about it, it is like being tried as a 'witch' You are thrown in the water and if you float you are guilty, yet if you sink, you drown. Some choice, huh?
For me, I KNOW that I am not good at ABX type tests. I have known this for decades, as I have seen some people who are better at this. And of course, their input is disregarded by the 'hear no difference' crowd. Yes, the 'failures' are publicized and the 'successes' are ignored. This is because it is not an 'objective' belief behind it. Just the belief that not much matters, and we should not concern ourselves about a bunch of 'details' that are not easily measured or 'proven'.
I'd say constant LED feels more like reading a book under natural light, it feels quite normal really, while fluroescent feels non-natural.
I've never had a flickering LED, but I can imagine really long-term exposure to them could evoke feelings of annoyance, ADD, OCD etc. in certain individuals.
After all the flicker is still there! It's just our mind is making sure we don't realise it, IT realises it however! -- our pre-attentive networks.
John, if we know that each and every pne of us hears differently, if only by a bit, then we can say that hearing is basically a subjetive experience.
How then do we turn this subjective experience into an objective one, or how do we draw the line of absolute truth in a world of subjcetive truths?
My answer to that questions is that we don't because we can't. The very best we can hope for is a majority opinion that something sounds good, but even so, there will be variances within that majority too.
More to the point, WHY should we be so hell bent to have an absolute benchmark? It seems some of us need to told externally what is good and what is not. I pity those souls. I think somebody wants to make money as representing this absolute landmark. He who owns the standard ...
Once you can pin down what your claim is, it's easier to design a good test to see if it's true. Of course, no matter what, you'll have fraudsters with a financial stake in the outcome bleating about how awful your test is if it doesn't prop up what they're peddling. Examples abound.
The ABX test was put forth by a company formed to make ABX boxes. These people went to the AES and promoted their position. However, once most everybody found that they could not hear many differences through the box and the procedure specified, people lost interest, and stopped buying the box, and they went out of business. You would be amazed at all the 'compromises' made with total disregard to finding 'differences' in many of these ABX tests.
Listening tests.
Would we have anyone telling us what Whisk(e)y to drink and that might be none? The weird thing is the people testing make up the rules when hi fi. I am totally the master of my own taste and feel 100% confident about what I like. Then I try hard to find out what other people like and see if there is a fit.
Two politicians running for the UK were described as the Evil of two Lessers. Exactly.
Would we have anyone telling us what Whisk(e)y to drink and that might be none? The weird thing is the people testing make up the rules when hi fi. I am totally the master of my own taste and feel 100% confident about what I like. Then I try hard to find out what other people like and see if there is a fit.
Two politicians running for the UK were described as the Evil of two Lessers. Exactly.
Poor analogy. If someone tells you that using a white cap on the bottle instead of a red cap causes the whiskey to taste better and be more enjoyable, then they should be able to pick out the "better" ones without knowing which glass was poured out of which bottle.
If their choice is random, then they're plain and simply wrong about their claim.
Yes, I wonder if they thought that they could put themselves out of business, before they started all that. Ironic, isn't it?
I think that's all I want to shine light on really, that ABX may be imperfect or flawed at times.
I suspect it's perfect for volume and FR differences, but it seems like it could null in certain situations?
Look at the testing on page 8, 9, 10 and 11 here
http://www.partsconnexion.com/t/claritycap/Reseach_Summary.pdf
Not sure if it's true or not.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.