More Holt, describing some ears-only tests in which he participated:
"Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio."
"Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio."
As a reference point, many years ago I used a sound clip from Paul Simon's Graceland album to catch systems out - this is the sort of thing I would use in a DBT, to very quickly separate competence levels. This is Tk 3, "I Know What I Know", at elapsed times 4 secs, and 25 secs into the track there are short bursts of drumming about a couple of secs long, with high levels of reverb added - the ability of a system to clearly reproduce this, at increasing volume levels, would be a giveaway, for distinguishing A and B, typically ...
Right, but their perception is what matters in their decision making and they perceive they have.
Yes, it doesn't matter whether the average novice person can hear analytically enough to consistently pass some kind of "tests".
It only matters whether a particular individual has such skills, so that their talent can be used to advance the art. And art it remains.
Just as much faxe to lose as those who read off the instruments, and proclaim that since it has liow THD, IM; DIM, TIM and POOF, it MUST sound good.
Funny those who "trust their ears", won't when asked to in the presence of others (not of their own posse, of course).
Let's see now, no claim is too extreme. BrandR resistors made the day before a big holiday sounded "off", obvious to everyone in the room in 30 seconds.
That also depends on who you ask. Some are indeed imaginary and self proclaimed "golden ears", but others really do have an above average hearing and actually can pick out minute differences most others miss.
Like it or not, but we as a species are creatures of habit. If somebody has a pair of speakers many others would describe as a bit too bright, that somebody will find most others speakers to be a little recessed, dark, withdrawn, etc.
A wise man, Mr Holt. I cannot but wholeheartedly agree with the above quote.
Let's be honest. I think that practilly all of us use measurements when constructing something. They will tell us in no uncertain terms when something is not right, if not outright wrong, and will help us to improve whatever we are doing to the point of good electrical quality. Before that's done, no tweaking will work well.
Once accomplished, that creates a good basis for tweaking, for lack of a better word. On that basis, one can start tuning the device by ear, change parts by type, by manufacturer, by model and even by value. This is a painstaking process, but in my view, the biggest kick I get out of it. Eventually, one ends up with an improved device, and once again does the whole battery of measurements to check out whether anything is significantly changed. If one knoes what he's on about, the device will read out the same general measurement figures, but will sound better than it initially did. By "better", I mean with less noise, more coherence and focus and better dynamic performance.
To be really good, I believe any device must go therough the same process like the one descriibed above, with personal twists and turns.
That's how I do it. How do you do it, John?
Ever Been to Asia? They like bright. Also, everyone has ear damage of some sort. I find it hard to believe some old dude has golden ears - maybe a five year old. And especially if they have had a life time of playing music, even symphonies. I think this is why there are so many speaker brands out there. As far as ear training, yes you can learn to tune an instrument by ear. The part of music that is god given is timing. you have it or you don't. If you can do that, you will be close to "Golden Ears."
Didn't an American politician once say something like there are lies, goddamn lies and statistics?
Using statistics proves absolutely nothing because the quality of the results is directly dependent on how the model was set up. This becomes even more important and arguable in case of intangible values, such as customer satisfaction, let alone aural perception.
How do you explain all those tests where "subtle differences" are, in fact, resolved?
It wasn't but I know exactly why you say that. What I can say about phono stages is do the 75 uS passive and set the gain division by ear. A good rule of thumb is 3180/318 should have a gain of 16 at 1kHz. A gain of 100 in the 75 uS is OK and still will have OK distortion compared with the job being done. Wide bandwidth is a good thing. A cheap chip MC33078 does good job. Even at gain 100 it will reach unity at 160 kHz. I have used exotic op amps and found them better and worse. Harsh being the worse bit.
Nope, not inadvertent. It's irrelevant to the point (fashion audio is a laughingstock among the rational for a refusal to do any kind of controlled listening). It's also something that no-one disagrees with.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.