Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eyes closed, AV amp detected!
I suspect the editors of Stereophile have probably spent time listening to more "highend rigs" than everyone participating in this thread put together! Yet they couldn't tell a $700 Carver from a $10,000+ tube amp. The Carver is full of cheap parts, no vibration control, etc. Many here claim those things make a big audible difference. How come some of the best, most highly trained ears couldn't hear any???
I think the owner of Sunshine Audio with a $100,000+ system was intimately familiar with high end gear and couldn't tell his $15,000 monoblocks from a cheap Yamaha integrated amp. The same is likely true of the audiophiles Tom Nousaine had participate in his blind amplifier tests.
Or me and my co-workers at our own store who couldn't tell an Audio Research power amp from an Onkyo integrated amp? We lived and breathed "highend rigs" (and up until that point thought they sounded WAY better than the mainstream stuff).
So how do you explain the above Pan??? Some of these folks obviously know high-end gear... probably better than you do.
And I can't believe that folks like you are ignoring all the evidence of very "enlightened" audiophiles who haven't been able to tell the difference between amplifiers!Pan said:Nah, you´ll have to find your proof yourselfJust search up a good highend rig and you will be enlightend without doubt. Honestly I can´t bleieve someone spending time on an audio board has missed out on the very audible difference between most all links in the audio chain.
I suspect the editors of Stereophile have probably spent time listening to more "highend rigs" than everyone participating in this thread put together! Yet they couldn't tell a $700 Carver from a $10,000+ tube amp. The Carver is full of cheap parts, no vibration control, etc. Many here claim those things make a big audible difference. How come some of the best, most highly trained ears couldn't hear any???
I think the owner of Sunshine Audio with a $100,000+ system was intimately familiar with high end gear and couldn't tell his $15,000 monoblocks from a cheap Yamaha integrated amp. The same is likely true of the audiophiles Tom Nousaine had participate in his blind amplifier tests.
Or me and my co-workers at our own store who couldn't tell an Audio Research power amp from an Onkyo integrated amp? We lived and breathed "highend rigs" (and up until that point thought they sounded WAY better than the mainstream stuff).
So how do you explain the above Pan??? Some of these folks obviously know high-end gear... probably better than you do.
Well you're somewhat more enlightened than some others who've been participating in this thread. The problem is, where do we draw the line?Pan said:
You think Shatki Stones are a fraud, yet some audiophiles swear they make a big difference. Can we measure the difference they make? Probably not.
Measurable differences in the audible band between say a dozen different brands of 1 meter high end interconnects are hard to come by. Sure there are some really weird interconnects out there that intentionally distort the signal, but ignoring those, it's hard to measure meaningful differences between many of them. Does that mean they all sound the same?
Tom Nousaine pulled together a group of respected ears for a blind cable challenge. You know what he found out? They couldn't tell a $3 Radio Shack set of RCA cables from the $300 ones! You can read about it here:
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
So perhaps audiophiles really cannot tell the difference between most cables when you remove the psychological bias of knowing which ones you're listening to? So we go from Shatki Stones to cables to amplifiers to speakers. Somewhere along the way you cross over from imagined differences to real differences. All I'm suggesting is to use blind testing to find out where that point really is for a given system and set of ears.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eyes closed, AV amp detected!
And that's what really irks me.
There's a near complete and total denial of the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions are not always entirely due to actual audible differences.
So to that end, if someone else doesn't seem to perceive a difference, it's invariably a problem with the person who doesn't perceive a difference. They're either deaf, their system sucks, whatever.
Never is there any acknowledgement of the possibility that the difference that was perceived was for reasons other than actual audible differences.
This isn't to say that because someone perceives a difference and someone else doesn't that there were in fact no actual audible differences.
But those who are in complete and absolute denial of the reality of other possibilities have always puzzled me. I have a difficult time understanding how some people who by all other accounts seem to be quite normal but in certain areas show a complete lack of ability when it comes to logical, rational thought.
It's as if because they see the sun rise in the east and set in the west, they can only conclude that the sun orbits the earth. If you attempt to point out to them that they would observe the same thing if the earth were spinning, they get all indignant, assure you by saying "I know what I see" and then go on to start questioning your sex life.
Bizarre.
se
nw_avphile said:
And that's what really irks me.
There's a near complete and total denial of the well-established fact that our subjective perceptions are not always entirely due to actual audible differences.
So to that end, if someone else doesn't seem to perceive a difference, it's invariably a problem with the person who doesn't perceive a difference. They're either deaf, their system sucks, whatever.
Never is there any acknowledgement of the possibility that the difference that was perceived was for reasons other than actual audible differences.
This isn't to say that because someone perceives a difference and someone else doesn't that there were in fact no actual audible differences.
But those who are in complete and absolute denial of the reality of other possibilities have always puzzled me. I have a difficult time understanding how some people who by all other accounts seem to be quite normal but in certain areas show a complete lack of ability when it comes to logical, rational thought.
It's as if because they see the sun rise in the east and set in the west, they can only conclude that the sun orbits the earth. If you attempt to point out to them that they would observe the same thing if the earth were spinning, they get all indignant, assure you by saying "I know what I see" and then go on to start questioning your sex life.
Bizarre.
se
Re: Re: Re: We Got Both Kinds..
Hi Fred (and everyone else in this thread),
I've been reading this thread with amazement. I've always thought that people who design electronics equipment (and let's get real, audio equipment IS electronics equipment, even if we lDIYers ike to identify ourselves with Stradivarius sometimes - with important qualification about electromechanical thingies like speakers, mics, cartridges etc.), that those people would have enough scientific spirit in themselves to undestand the need for impartiality and objectiveness.
I'm sory if my point seems a bit obscure, so let's try to hit the nail on the head.
Fred, how does one learn to hear the differences between two competently designed amplifiers that are working well within their limits ? And more importantly, why is there no evidence (and I mean EVIDENCE, an open letter to Stereophile and Absolute Sound by disgrunted Golden Ear doesn't count as evidence in my admittedly overly scientificly inclined books) that ANYONE can reliably hear those differences under a controlled DB test ? Let's forget about statistics, if those differences are so obvious, a person will be able to tell apart those devices (say a cheap, but well designed consumer grade amp and state of the art megabuck monster amp) EVERY time, ALL the time.
After all, I can do that with ease when comparing speakers for example.
I apologize if I'm mistaken, but a task for an amplifier is to amplify a signal so there is enough electrons to move those horribly inefficient and distortion prone electromechanical devices called speakers. Now, there are some amazingly good specimen out there, but on average, speakers will distort (colour, muddy, whatever is your fave audiophile term) at least an order of magnitude more than a competent amp. In many cases SEVERAL oreders of magnitude. For our non scientifically inclined frends, this is akin to trying to say count your blood white cell content using naked eye, or attempt to record spectra of a quasar 5 billion light years away using your instanmatic camera.
It CAN'T be done, no matter what you believe.
People keep dismissing a null test - a true scientific, and amazingly simple and straightforward approach to testing of amplifiers. All sorts of excuses are offered, most vocal being that we may want to "repair" the sound so it is more "listenable".
This is fine, but again we have to remember that whatever coloration we intruduce by changing capacitors, resistors, feet, wire and insulation material, will be deeply burried into the "noise" of what speaker and room adds to the sound. Moving your head an inch, someone walking into the room, or having a jumper thrown onto the spare chair will affect sound FAR more that changing all of the resistors in that amp with 75$ apiece super special bulk unobtanium ones.
If (and I mean _if_) you believe that your mods make a difference to your amp, and after that you feel better and enjoy the music more, that is perfectly fine.
But if you try to convince othrers that there is a REAL effect, I'm afraid there is only one way to do it - and that involves cool headed, controlled scientific method. It may sound dogmatic, but in fact it is EXACTLY the opposite - science is all about openness to critique and peer review. But this requires an open mind, and I'm afraid not much evidence of that came from the subjectivistic camp so far.
Bratislav
Fred Dieckmann said:
Hi Fred (and everyone else in this thread),
I've been reading this thread with amazement. I've always thought that people who design electronics equipment (and let's get real, audio equipment IS electronics equipment, even if we lDIYers ike to identify ourselves with Stradivarius sometimes
- with important qualification about electromechanical thingies like speakers, mics, cartridges etc.), that those people would have enough scientific spirit in themselves to undestand the need for impartiality and objectiveness.I'm sory if my point seems a bit obscure, so let's try to hit the nail on the head.
Fred, how does one learn to hear the differences between two competently designed amplifiers that are working well within their limits ? And more importantly, why is there no evidence (and I mean EVIDENCE, an open letter to Stereophile and Absolute Sound by disgrunted Golden Ear doesn't count as evidence in my admittedly overly scientificly inclined books) that ANYONE can reliably hear those differences under a controlled DB test ? Let's forget about statistics, if those differences are so obvious, a person will be able to tell apart those devices (say a cheap, but well designed consumer grade amp and state of the art megabuck monster amp) EVERY time, ALL the time.
After all, I can do that with ease when comparing speakers for example.
I apologize if I'm mistaken, but a task for an amplifier is to amplify a signal so there is enough electrons to move those horribly inefficient and distortion prone electromechanical devices called speakers. Now, there are some amazingly good specimen out there, but on average, speakers will distort (colour, muddy, whatever is your fave audiophile term) at least an order of magnitude more than a competent amp. In many cases SEVERAL oreders of magnitude. For our non scientifically inclined frends, this is akin to trying to say count your blood white cell content using naked eye, or attempt to record spectra of a quasar 5 billion light years away using your instanmatic camera.
It CAN'T be done, no matter what you believe.
People keep dismissing a null test - a true scientific, and amazingly simple and straightforward approach to testing of amplifiers. All sorts of excuses are offered, most vocal being that we may want to "repair" the sound so it is more "listenable".
This is fine, but again we have to remember that whatever coloration we intruduce by changing capacitors, resistors, feet, wire and insulation material, will be deeply burried into the "noise" of what speaker and room adds to the sound. Moving your head an inch, someone walking into the room, or having a jumper thrown onto the spare chair will affect sound FAR more that changing all of the resistors in that amp with 75$ apiece super special bulk unobtanium ones.
If (and I mean _if_) you believe that your mods make a difference to your amp, and after that you feel better and enjoy the music more, that is perfectly fine.
But if you try to convince othrers that there is a REAL effect, I'm afraid there is only one way to do it - and that involves cool headed, controlled scientific method. It may sound dogmatic, but in fact it is EXACTLY the opposite - science is all about openness to critique and peer review. But this requires an open mind, and I'm afraid not much evidence of that came from the subjectivistic camp so far.
Bratislav
ROUND 706.
Hi,
Weird interconnects?
Really? Intentionally distorting the source? Glooops...
Goes to show how little understanding you have about the subject, frightening really.
I happen to design most of those oddballs so shoot me.
It's a hobby, transmissionlines ya know...
And yes, they all sound different..depending on a lot of things.
Seems you're way out of your depth on this one, and I'am being very, very kind.
Next thing I know you'll be listening to some pure gold interconnects?
Don't laugh, I have another thing coming.
Please discuss what you're comfortable with.
I have said it before DBT tells a lot more about the people undergoing the test than the equipment under test.
Going against the grain,
Hi,
Weird interconnects?
Really? Intentionally distorting the source? Glooops...
Goes to show how little understanding you have about the subject, frightening really.
I happen to design most of those oddballs so shoot me.
It's a hobby, transmissionlines ya know...
And yes, they all sound different..depending on a lot of things.
Seems you're way out of your depth on this one, and I'am being very, very kind.
Next thing I know you'll be listening to some pure gold interconnects?
Don't laugh, I have another thing coming.
Please discuss what you're comfortable with.
I have said it before DBT tells a lot more about the people undergoing the test than the equipment under test.
Going against the grain,
Re: ROUND 706.
Your snide remarks might be funny to some, but you're really not adding much here.
I stand behind my statements about interconnects. Note I did say "measurements in the audible band". If you can explain to us why the Tom Nousaine article and tests are flawed, AND objectively prove why "they all sound different" (your words about interconnects), then please do so. BUT: Please back up your comments with some relevant FACTS for once or stop making apparently groundless and insulting comments about the knowledge of others when it seems to be your knowledge that's in question here.
The last time I tried to debate facts with you about measuring amplifier output with soundcards you did the same thing. You threw out some garbage that implied I was wrong and then failed to ever demonstrate HOW I was wrong or back up your claims. Anyone see a pattern here?
You're a master at insinuating things fdegrove, but you rarely back any of your comments up with anything that's factual and relevant--even when asked to do so.
What's frightening is how little meaningful information you've contributed to this thread. You've been asked over and over many questions and, for the most part, you've either ignored them completely or your answer has had little to do with the subject matter. Your latest post is just another example.fdegrove said:
Your snide remarks might be funny to some, but you're really not adding much here.
I stand behind my statements about interconnects. Note I did say "measurements in the audible band". If you can explain to us why the Tom Nousaine article and tests are flawed, AND objectively prove why "they all sound different" (your words about interconnects), then please do so. BUT: Please back up your comments with some relevant FACTS for once or stop making apparently groundless and insulting comments about the knowledge of others when it seems to be your knowledge that's in question here.
The last time I tried to debate facts with you about measuring amplifier output with soundcards you did the same thing. You threw out some garbage that implied I was wrong and then failed to ever demonstrate HOW I was wrong or back up your claims. Anyone see a pattern here?
You're a master at insinuating things fdegrove, but you rarely back any of your comments up with anything that's factual and relevant--even when asked to do so.
"I suspect the editors of Stereophile have probably spent time listening to more "highend rigs" than everyone participating in this thread put together! Yet they couldn't tell a $700 Carver from a $10,000+ tube amp. The Carver is full of cheap parts, no vibration control, etc. Many here claim those things make a big audible difference. How come some of the best, most highly trained ears couldn't hear any???"
Errr, because the amps were intentionally tweaked to sound the same by Carvers DYNAMIC nulling test.
This test just proves that two amplifiers modified to have the same transfer function, whether SS or tube are essentially indistinguishable.
It does however say nothing at all whether different 'factory condition' amplifiers are indistinguishable.
I think some of you guys are reading wrongly into that Stereophile test.
"Signal levels (music or sine) can be heard BELOW sytem noise floor and are NOT masked totally by it."
Yes, this is called correlation, and is what trained ears do - they listen and pickup modulations in the noise, and this is much of the fine differences in amplifiers.
Detecting signals below the noise floor is another associated subject, and can be done with DSP.
Eric.
Errr, because the amps were intentionally tweaked to sound the same by Carvers DYNAMIC nulling test.
This test just proves that two amplifiers modified to have the same transfer function, whether SS or tube are essentially indistinguishable.
It does however say nothing at all whether different 'factory condition' amplifiers are indistinguishable.
I think some of you guys are reading wrongly into that Stereophile test.
"Signal levels (music or sine) can be heard BELOW sytem noise floor and are NOT masked totally by it."
Yes, this is called correlation, and is what trained ears do - they listen and pickup modulations in the noise, and this is much of the fine differences in amplifiers.
Detecting signals below the noise floor is another associated subject, and can be done with DSP.
Eric.
I agree! You left out all the other blind audiophile tests referenced that didn't involve any tweaking, but I agree with the above. It's good to have one more vote for the validity of null testing. It follows if you can get a 70db null between any two cables, or capacitors, or CD players, etc. they should also be impossible for even the GoldenEars to distinguish.mrfeedback said:
I agree with that as well. A 70db null is WAY down there. If anyone doubts this, turn up your system to a level you would use for critical listening and then apply 70db of attenuation. A lot of volume controls won't even go that low. If they do, it's hard to hear what's left in a quiet room unless you put your ear up to the speaker (depending of course on your reference level).mrfeedback said:
DBL Test Is Actually A Multiple Blind Listening Test...
Ok we have digital audio with 90+dB SNR, amplifiers with similar SNR, listening environments with much less SNR, recordings with doubtfull SNR, and still fine differences can be noticed despite all these masking noise sources.
This is due to correlation ability of ear/brain system, and this is a learned process.
It can take extended listening to learn, discern and then ignore the natures of all these noise sources, and when this learning process is completed, just about any minor change will be apparent in the 'known' system.
As I see it, the LACK of this appropriate learning period (becoming fully familiar with the nature of all the noise sources) is a major fault in DBL tests.
Anybody can pick major differences immediately, most can hear subtle differences quickly, but it can take time to discern very fine differences, and it can be the nature of these fine differences that on long term listening are revealed as 'good' or 'bad', and then according to individual preferances.
Imo, it is not a fair test to plonk a group of unfamiliar listeners into an unfamiliar room, listen on unfamiliar equipment to unfamiliar music, and then expect fully meaningful test results.
Eric.
nw_avphile said:
Ok we have digital audio with 90+dB SNR, amplifiers with similar SNR, listening environments with much less SNR, recordings with doubtfull SNR, and still fine differences can be noticed despite all these masking noise sources.
This is due to correlation ability of ear/brain system, and this is a learned process.
It can take extended listening to learn, discern and then ignore the natures of all these noise sources, and when this learning process is completed, just about any minor change will be apparent in the 'known' system.
As I see it, the LACK of this appropriate learning period (becoming fully familiar with the nature of all the noise sources) is a major fault in DBL tests.
Anybody can pick major differences immediately, most can hear subtle differences quickly, but it can take time to discern very fine differences, and it can be the nature of these fine differences that on long term listening are revealed as 'good' or 'bad', and then according to individual preferances.
Imo, it is not a fair test to plonk a group of unfamiliar listeners into an unfamiliar room, listen on unfamiliar equipment to unfamiliar music, and then expect fully meaningful test results.
Eric.
Re: DBL Test Is Actually A Multiple Blind Listening Test...
As for hearing more subtle things over the long term, I won't deny that might be possible. But a strong case can be made if the differences are so subtle to evade a few hours of careful comparisons, they're likely subtle enough to not be an issue one way or the other. More to the point, many people believe the difference between a mainstream inexpensive piece of gear you can buy at the local mega store and a high-end amplifier should be plenty obvious and not require weeks to detect.
On the point of S/N ratios, I want to be clear when I reference a -70db null that's below the *listening level* not below the *maximum level*. So you can't really compare that number to S/N ratios, dynamic range numbers, etc.
Again, I agree. That's why most of the blind test's I've referenced have been done in very familiar surroundings--in many cases the person's own home, system and music. The results are less meaningful, although not necessarily invalid, if you change too many variables at a time.mrfeedback said:
As for hearing more subtle things over the long term, I won't deny that might be possible. But a strong case can be made if the differences are so subtle to evade a few hours of careful comparisons, they're likely subtle enough to not be an issue one way or the other. More to the point, many people believe the difference between a mainstream inexpensive piece of gear you can buy at the local mega store and a high-end amplifier should be plenty obvious and not require weeks to detect.
On the point of S/N ratios, I want to be clear when I reference a -70db null that's below the *listening level* not below the *maximum level*. So you can't really compare that number to S/N ratios, dynamic range numbers, etc.
Fast And Slow learning...
Yes, for long term I am saying a few hours or days even to fully familiarise with a particular system/room.
After this ear/brain 'burn-in' period, even subtle changes ought to be discernable quite quickly, and certainly after a number of A/B comparisons using the one song repeatedly, or several tracks to establish a new correlation.
Yes, if it takes hours to discern small new changes, then their degree of importance is relatively little, particularly if the system was already detailed AND pleasing - these two do not always come together.
Mainstream gear can sound pleasing enough, and expensive gear can sound unpleasing in my experience, despite all the distortion mechanisms concerned.
Eric.
nw_avphile said:
Yes, for long term I am saying a few hours or days even to fully familiarise with a particular system/room.
After this ear/brain 'burn-in' period, even subtle changes ought to be discernable quite quickly, and certainly after a number of A/B comparisons using the one song repeatedly, or several tracks to establish a new correlation.
Yes, if it takes hours to discern small new changes, then their degree of importance is relatively little, particularly if the system was already detailed AND pleasing - these two do not always come together.
Mainstream gear can sound pleasing enough, and expensive gear can sound unpleasing in my experience, despite all the distortion mechanisms concerned.
Eric.
Re: Fast And Slow learning...
All valid points, more or less, but
one - I thought that we are talking about amplifiers only, not systems (speakers and rooms are completely different species altogether), and
two - yes there are horribly expensive amps that are quite incompetent (prone to oscillations, restricted bandwidth, excessive harmonic distortion - note all of these are easily measurable and quantifyable).
What are we are talking here is comparing COMPETENT amps within their operating range. Just as Peter Walker did - what is it - some 30 years ago, or Bob Carver, or numerous other, less publicised tests. The subjectivistic camp keeps conveniently ignoring all of those tests, some of which involved listening over long periods in intimately known environment (GoldenEars' own home), without offering anything to the contrary but hearsay, personal opinions or beliefs.
Being convinced that one amp sounds better than the other is perfectly fine with me. What is not is when that subjective stance is imposed into the realm of reality without proper evidence.
Bratislav
mrfeedback said:
All valid points, more or less, but
one - I thought that we are talking about amplifiers only, not systems (speakers and rooms are completely different species altogether), and
two - yes there are horribly expensive amps that are quite incompetent (prone to oscillations, restricted bandwidth, excessive harmonic distortion - note all of these are easily measurable and quantifyable).
What are we are talking here is comparing COMPETENT amps within their operating range. Just as Peter Walker did - what is it - some 30 years ago, or Bob Carver, or numerous other, less publicised tests. The subjectivistic camp keeps conveniently ignoring all of those tests, some of which involved listening over long periods in intimately known environment (GoldenEars' own home), without offering anything to the contrary but hearsay, personal opinions or beliefs.
Being convinced that one amp sounds better than the other is perfectly fine with me. What is not is when that subjective stance is imposed into the realm of reality without proper evidence.
Bratislav
Re: Re: Re: Re: We Got Both Kinds..
I wellcome "null tets" as these can proove what "golden ears" do hear is actually there.
One guy did a nulling test only swapping power cord to A CDP, results showed that there was a difference in what was coming out of the RCA/XLR terminalks depending on which power cord was there. HAAAA!
And by the way, the fact that you state that audible differences between various caps and cables are "deeply burried" by speaker and room distortion/noise only tells how little you know about high performande audio reproduction. The errors from cables (as an example) is smaller than the errors from the room, that is correct, but they are audible with good speakers and in a room with decent acoustics.
Writing this I assume (maybe wrong of me) that "burried" as you write it means "masked and non-audible"?
/Peter
Bratislav said:
I wellcome "null tets" as these can proove what "golden ears" do hear is actually there.
One guy did a nulling test only swapping power cord to A CDP, results showed that there was a difference in what was coming out of the RCA/XLR terminalks depending on which power cord was there. HAAAA!
And by the way, the fact that you state that audible differences between various caps and cables are "deeply burried" by speaker and room distortion/noise only tells how little you know about high performande audio reproduction. The errors from cables (as an example) is smaller than the errors from the room, that is correct, but they are audible with good speakers and in a room with decent acoustics.
Writing this I assume (maybe wrong of me) that "burried" as you write it means "masked and non-audible"?
/Peter
Deaf people
Deam it, sit still, everyone!
nw, I can put track 8 of the first Ben Harper CD, and with eyes closed I detect your AV amp.
In the end of the song you have all instruments playing and an impressive bass slam and with a cheap amp it doesn't keep the pace.
You only distinguish clearly all the instruments with a good amp, with lots of current to drive the speakers, EVEN AT LOW VOLUME!
What do you hear when comparing two amps?
Oh please... I have a really crappy old Singer
amp in my basement and I would be glad to send it to you.
You can send me your Bryston.
Deal?
Deam it, sit still, everyone!
nw, I can put track 8 of the first Ben Harper CD, and with eyes closed I detect your AV amp.
In the end of the song you have all instruments playing and an impressive bass slam and with a cheap amp it doesn't keep the pace.
You only distinguish clearly all the instruments with a good amp, with lots of current to drive the speakers, EVEN AT LOW VOLUME!
What do you hear when comparing two amps?
Oh please... I have a really crappy old Singer
amp in my basement and I would be glad to send it to you.You can send me your Bryston.
Deal?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.