Re: I'm actually in all 3 categories...
I'm afraid you have missed the basic principle of a scientific method. It is never up to ONE scientist, whether we talk about his experiments, beliefs, wishes or demands. The whole idea is that EVERYONE must be able to criticise/agree/disagree using every means possible (theory, experiment, math, black magic, whatever), and in turn that person's results are again exposed to peer review. And ad nauseum, until the truth surfaces in an absolutely undisputeable form.
*If* you claim that you can hear differences that are not measurable, you have to be prepared to defend that position. That may involve someone else repeating the experiment, or you proving that in a controlled environment whithout the luxury of knowing which amplifier you are listening to, you can still tell them apart.
Some people are disciplined enough to do this themselves - nw_aphile is one example, yours truly another. And be frank enough to admit that what they *believed* they have hearing (the differences between Copland CSA14, AR LS7 / Krell KSA100 combo, Rotel 840 and tiny Yamaha A-320 in my case) are only in one's head. Short term, fast A/Bing, slow A/Bing, extended period (weeks). The bottom line is *impartiality* and *objectiveness*.
You must NOT know what you are listening to in order for experiment to be valid. Sighted tests are absolutely worthless (unless they are cunningly deviant in order to fool someone as in case of pre-recorded CD played in lieu of expensive turntable
)
Yes, I can be dismissed as deaf & dumb (that is too easy) but what about all those golden ears working in audiophile publications who actually invented terms like "timing", "pace", "slam" , "microdynamics" etc. ? They failed too (see Walker & Levinson experiments). So WHO actually is then not deaf ? I suppose one obvious example would be some very confident people from this thread. I 'd dearly like to try the unsighted amp test with all of them and finally put the end to my doubts that I may indeed be deaf . Unfortunately we are at different contininents, so it is not practical.
What evidence can you offer to defend your scepticism about what can we measure ? And why would our ears be superior anyway ? After all, why stop at just ears - how about that supercooled CCD at the end of a 10m Keck telescope - is that also inferior to our eyes ? Or that megabuck mass spectrometer - that surely isn't as good as our nose ? How about neutrino detectors ? How does one hear/see/smell those ?
In any case, measuring amplifier is trivialy simple. Electrical signal in, electrical signal out. We have means of comparing those with absolute confidence and impartiality. Attenuate the output and compare it to the input. They will never be the same - question is
how much difference is there. And if say that difference gets worse with complex loads (again trivially simple - load the amp with speaker of your choice and compare again). What could be wrong with this approach ? And more importantly, if there is no visible difference HOW on Earth could anyone hear the difference anywhere else but in his head ?
Sorry, your example is simply wrong.
Bratislav
purplepeople said:
I'm afraid you have missed the basic principle of a scientific method. It is never up to ONE scientist, whether we talk about his experiments, beliefs, wishes or demands. The whole idea is that EVERYONE must be able to criticise/agree/disagree using every means possible (theory, experiment, math, black magic, whatever), and in turn that person's results are again exposed to peer review. And ad nauseum, until the truth surfaces in an absolutely undisputeable form.
*If* you claim that you can hear differences that are not measurable, you have to be prepared to defend that position. That may involve someone else repeating the experiment, or you proving that in a controlled environment whithout the luxury of knowing which amplifier you are listening to, you can still tell them apart.
Some people are disciplined enough to do this themselves - nw_aphile is one example, yours truly another. And be frank enough to admit that what they *believed* they have hearing (the differences between Copland CSA14, AR LS7 / Krell KSA100 combo, Rotel 840 and tiny Yamaha A-320 in my case) are only in one's head. Short term, fast A/Bing, slow A/Bing, extended period (weeks). The bottom line is *impartiality* and *objectiveness*.
You must NOT know what you are listening to in order for experiment to be valid. Sighted tests are absolutely worthless (unless they are cunningly deviant in order to fool someone as in case of pre-recorded CD played in lieu of expensive turntable
)Yes, I can be dismissed as deaf & dumb (that is too easy) but what about all those golden ears working in audiophile publications who actually invented terms like "timing", "pace", "slam" , "microdynamics" etc. ? They failed too (see Walker & Levinson experiments). So WHO actually is then not deaf ? I suppose one obvious example would be some very confident people from this thread. I 'd dearly like to try the unsighted amp test with all of them and finally put the end to my doubts that I may indeed be deaf
. Unfortunately we are at different contininents, so it is not practical.What evidence can you offer to defend your scepticism about what can we measure ? And why would our ears be superior anyway ? After all, why stop at just ears - how about that supercooled CCD at the end of a 10m Keck telescope - is that also inferior to our eyes ? Or that megabuck mass spectrometer - that surely isn't as good as our nose ? How about neutrino detectors ? How does one hear/see/smell those ?
In any case, measuring amplifier is trivialy simple. Electrical signal in, electrical signal out. We have means of comparing those with absolute confidence and impartiality. Attenuate the output and compare it to the input. They will never be the same - question is
how much difference is there. And if say that difference gets worse with complex loads (again trivially simple - load the amp with speaker of your choice and compare again). What could be wrong with this approach ? And more importantly, if there is no visible difference HOW on Earth could anyone hear the difference anywhere else but in his head ?
Sorry, your example is simply wrong.
Bratislav
Bratislav
First I apologize if I offended you, not my intention but judging by what you wrote it seems you have missed out a bit of what happens in reality, when listening to a high resolving hifi rig.
The powr-cord thing was MEASURED. The guy nulled the file of on cable to itself and nothing was left. Then he nulled the other cable and nothing was left. Nulling the two cables against eachother gave some residual "crap". I think this was the way the test was done, and he seemed to have a grip on what he was doing.
Also before being much to angry on me, re-read this part of my post again, especially the last part;
""""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"?""""
If all low level signals is as masked as your theory suggest, how come there is audible difference between low distortion CDP´s, cables, amps, capacitors and much more?
I installed a low jitter clock in my SACD and that made a huuge difference in sound. The player is a SCD-XB940 and according to Sony has reaaaaly low distortion in stock mode, still changing the clock made a big, big difference. Later I bypassed the analog section and installed a discrete feedbackfree class A design instead of the BB2134/32 IC´s that was in the machine, again big improvement in sound. And cables, how come the very low levels of distortion of cables is audible with all noise you mention?
BTW, the listening room background noise of 40dB you mention is close to what I measured in my listening room, BUT that is in the lowest frequencies. Don´t remember exactly how low the noise was in the higher range, but it was/is significantly lower, 10- 20dB or so. AND, it is in the highest frequencies there is most audible difference between CDP´s, cables and such components. Power amps obviously has more differences in the whole audioband.
Bratislav wrote:
"I won't even mention how much will speakers and room acoustics (resonances, diffraction and interference) add to the noise floor."
This is correct, this is also why I say that in many situations the speaker/room set up is to crappy to tell the difference between cables, CDP´s and maybe also power amps in some worste case scenario.
Nay sayers often refers to listening tests done in such environments IMO.
I use dipole speakers a lá Linkwitz for improved resolution in the room (Accuton and SS drivers). I also have 8 RPG bass absorbers and six "RPG type" diffractal diffusors and some wideband absorbers. Rest of the gear and the components is very revealing and a lot of the guys on this thread would be surprised if they got a chance to listen to various audio equippment in my room. That´s what make me so irritated when people say that "golden ears only imagine the differences".
I don´t use a preamp in my set up because the distortion is to audible. I use a two resistor voltage divider with presicion metalfilms, which is more transparent then the active pre´s I´ve tried. I guess some will respond "a pre with 0.01% THD will not degrade the sound, it´s in your head", "yea right", I say
Some people (read many) doens´t have a clue what high performance audio reproduction is capable of.
Happy listening!
/Peter
First I apologize if I offended you, not my intention but judging by what you wrote it seems you have missed out a bit of what happens in reality, when listening to a high resolving hifi rig.
The powr-cord thing was MEASURED. The guy nulled the file of on cable to itself and nothing was left. Then he nulled the other cable and nothing was left. Nulling the two cables against eachother gave some residual "crap". I think this was the way the test was done, and he seemed to have a grip on what he was doing.
Also before being much to angry on me, re-read this part of my post again, especially the last part;
""""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"?""""
If all low level signals is as masked as your theory suggest, how come there is audible difference between low distortion CDP´s, cables, amps, capacitors and much more?
I installed a low jitter clock in my SACD and that made a huuge difference in sound. The player is a SCD-XB940 and according to Sony has reaaaaly low distortion in stock mode, still changing the clock made a big, big difference. Later I bypassed the analog section and installed a discrete feedbackfree class A design instead of the BB2134/32 IC´s that was in the machine, again big improvement in sound. And cables, how come the very low levels of distortion of cables is audible with all noise you mention?
BTW, the listening room background noise of 40dB you mention is close to what I measured in my listening room, BUT that is in the lowest frequencies. Don´t remember exactly how low the noise was in the higher range, but it was/is significantly lower, 10- 20dB or so. AND, it is in the highest frequencies there is most audible difference between CDP´s, cables and such components. Power amps obviously has more differences in the whole audioband.
Bratislav wrote:
"I won't even mention how much will speakers and room acoustics (resonances, diffraction and interference) add to the noise floor."
This is correct, this is also why I say that in many situations the speaker/room set up is to crappy to tell the difference between cables, CDP´s and maybe also power amps in some worste case scenario.
Nay sayers often refers to listening tests done in such environments IMO.
I use dipole speakers a lá Linkwitz for improved resolution in the room (Accuton and SS drivers). I also have 8 RPG bass absorbers and six "RPG type" diffractal diffusors and some wideband absorbers. Rest of the gear and the components is very revealing and a lot of the guys on this thread would be surprised if they got a chance to listen to various audio equippment in my room. That´s what make me so irritated when people say that "golden ears only imagine the differences".
I don´t use a preamp in my set up because the distortion is to audible. I use a two resistor voltage divider with presicion metalfilms, which is more transparent then the active pre´s I´ve tried. I guess some will respond "a pre with 0.01% THD will not degrade the sound, it´s in your head", "yea right", I say
Some people (read many) doens´t have a clue what high performance audio reproduction is capable of.
Happy listening!
/Peter
Home Testing..
"I use dipole speakers a lá Linkwitz for improved resolution in the room (Accuton and SS drivers). I also have 8 RPG bass absorbers and six "RPG type" diffractal diffusors and some wideband absorbers. Rest of the gear and the components is very revealing and a lot of the guys on this thread would be surprised if they got a chance to listen to various audio equippment in my room. That´s what make me so irritated when people say that "golden ears only imagine the differences".
I don´t use a preamp in my set up because the distortion is to audible. I use a two resistor voltage divider with presicion metalfilms, which is more transparent then the active pre´s I´ve tried. I guess some will respond "a pre with 0.01% THD will not degrade the sound, it´s in your head", "yea right", I say "
Excellent, I'll be around next week.
Yup, when you have a treated room and good setup, differences are clear in my experience.
It does not matter - power cables, speaker cable, interconnects - everything you can think of is clearly resolved in the right room with the right gear.
I have not tried the 'null' test except for matching channels, but I do reckon that two amps that have been 'doctored' need to be really closely matched to be truly statistically indistinguishable under really good listening and system conditions.
Eric / I still believe MY ears above statistics.
"I use dipole speakers a lá Linkwitz for improved resolution in the room (Accuton and SS drivers). I also have 8 RPG bass absorbers and six "RPG type" diffractal diffusors and some wideband absorbers. Rest of the gear and the components is very revealing and a lot of the guys on this thread would be surprised if they got a chance to listen to various audio equippment in my room. That´s what make me so irritated when people say that "golden ears only imagine the differences".
I don´t use a preamp in my set up because the distortion is to audible. I use a two resistor voltage divider with presicion metalfilms, which is more transparent then the active pre´s I´ve tried. I guess some will respond "a pre with 0.01% THD will not degrade the sound, it´s in your head", "yea right", I say "
Excellent, I'll be around next week.
Yup, when you have a treated room and good setup, differences are clear in my experience.
It does not matter - power cables, speaker cable, interconnects - everything you can think of is clearly resolved in the right room with the right gear.
I have not tried the 'null' test except for matching channels, but I do reckon that two amps that have been 'doctored' need to be really closely matched to be truly statistically indistinguishable under really good listening and system conditions.
Eric / I still believe MY ears above statistics.
Wow ........ I MEAN WOW !!!!!
When I stated poor old NW was mad for starting this, I never realised just how silly this would get
One small point I will throw-in at this very late stage relates to "small effect" alterations. I am not talking here about complete amps in ABX mode, but the small "tweak" changes.
We need to be a little careful accepting "no difference" here, because it is very possible that we may make a change (say "better" resistors) which is not by itself detectable. However, it may be theoretically possible that a number of these "sub-threshold" changes combined may make a perceptible difference.
Now please, no replies on "but I can hear between resistors A/B" ..... this is just an example to describe a principle!
Medicine is full of examples of this, where drug A has no benefit, drug B has no benefit, but the combination does (yes, I am aware of the multiple levels where drug interactions may occur)
To NW: Please take a break! It should be quite clear now that you (or anyone else arguing for some semblance of scientific method) will never alter the entrenched (near religious) beliefs of a societal sub-culture. High-end mysticism is here to stay.
I think all aspects of this thread have been argued (to the extent that they can be) and we are now running around in ever diminishing circles and implosion is iminent.
cheers
mark
When I stated poor old NW was mad for starting this, I never realised just how silly this would get
One small point I will throw-in at this very late stage relates to "small effect" alterations. I am not talking here about complete amps in ABX mode, but the small "tweak" changes.
We need to be a little careful accepting "no difference" here, because it is very possible that we may make a change (say "better" resistors) which is not by itself detectable. However, it may be theoretically possible that a number of these "sub-threshold" changes combined may make a perceptible difference.
Now please, no replies on "but I can hear between resistors A/B" ..... this is just an example to describe a principle!
Medicine is full of examples of this, where drug A has no benefit, drug B has no benefit, but the combination does (yes, I am aware of the multiple levels where drug interactions may occur)
To NW: Please take a break! It should be quite clear now that you (or anyone else arguing for some semblance of scientific method) will never alter the entrenched (near religious) beliefs of a societal sub-culture. High-end mysticism is here to stay.
I think all aspects of this thread have been argued (to the extent that they can be) and we are now running around in ever diminishing circles and implosion is iminent.
cheers
mark
All Noise Annoys An Oyster..
Did you guys understand my points regarding noise ?.
Noise does not directly add except in a PERFECTLY LINEAR circuit.
If the circuit is not perfectly linear, then modulation products result.
Modulation products are far more audible than thd products, or FR changes.
Eric.
Did you guys understand my points regarding noise ?.
Noise does not directly add except in a PERFECTLY LINEAR circuit.
If the circuit is not perfectly linear, then modulation products result.
Modulation products are far more audible than thd products, or FR changes.
Eric.
Noise signals add vectorially. If they're correlated (a special case), then and only then do they add linearly.
If you have a 2 uV noise source (say, the Johnson noise of a resistor) and the noise is added to another 2 uV noise source which is uncorrelated (say, the noise of the transistor that the resistor is hooked up to), the total noise is going to be about 2.8 mV, not 4 mV.
If you have a 2 uV noise source (say, the Johnson noise of a resistor) and the noise is added to another 2 uV noise source which is uncorrelated (say, the noise of the transistor that the resistor is hooked up to), the total noise is going to be about 2.8 mV, not 4 mV.
You'll need to be a lot clearer, I'm not very bright. I don't understand what "instantaneous distortion" means, or what it could mean in relation to intermodulation. Can you be specific, maybe giving an example with numbers of how such a parameter is measured and calculated? And how your example would cause two random noise sources to add in any manner other than RMS? Thanks.
Re: Wow ........ I MEAN WOW !!!!!
Thanks to everyone for your comments here. It's been an interesting discussion even if much of it has been very polarized and things got a little ugly here and there.
I hope I've encouraged some of the more open minded folks to try some blind listening and see what happens.
Fair enough. I'm going to start a new thread on just null testing which is (hopefully?) a bit less controversial. This thread has given me some new ideas for null tests that could be very useful to the DIY audio crowd.mefinnis said:
Thanks to everyone for your comments here. It's been an interesting discussion even if much of it has been very polarized and things got a little ugly here and there.
I hope I've encouraged some of the more open minded folks to try some blind listening and see what happens.
I didn't realize that my science background failed me...
Dear Bratislav
I'm fully aware of peer review. That's why I believe that the scientific method can be applied. Of course... I expect that experiments and results must be repeatable for continued validation.
As to whether I hear the differences, I know that I have limits. There is a point beyond which I cannot hear. Please read all my posts (3?).
However, I will not disagree with those who claim to hear things I cannot. At some point we have to trust that people are telling their own truth. I would be more interested in finding a way to prove that someone can hear these differences, rather than disprove them. To me, SPL meter, multimeter, oscilloscope, microscope, eyes, ears, etc. are all instruments that our brains can use to determine our environment. If I could afford, and learn to use them all, I would. Until then, my body will help me decide.
Is not the ultimate signal processor in our brains. It is hooked up to all our senses. I just don't think we have maxed out its capability. On the other, current instruments and technology can tell us a lot, especially about the measurable values in our audio equipment.
As I said at the end of the last post, if you use only one type of measuring system, you cannot possibly make the best decisions about the equipment. Do you not test drive the car before buying it. Why? Because, even between units of the same model production line, there are variances and you want the best one for your money. Same for audio. Lot's of research so I can avoid the garbage right away and when I have a number of potential candidates, I go listen. I know that different speakers, components, cables etc. can/will affect the sound, but I can't bring all this test gear with me (besides, I don't know how to use them yet). I am forced to trust published specs and then go test driving.
Case in point. People put some faith in the automobile test comparisons. Why? Because they do not have the same skills/talents as the test drivers. They must trust the subjective opinions of these test drives. That does not mean they cannot tell the difference between a Hyundai and a Porsche. No... maybe they don't need the Porsche. Does that mean that a Mustang is not also worthwhile? Of course not. Some people can make the Mustang run circles around a Porsche driven by an amateur. Does that make the Mustang better. Probably not, just that the one driving the Porsche cannot fully appreciate its capabilities.
I am that person in the Porsche. Others can obviously afford Lambourghini. Many on this forum would like to hot rod a Mustang.
I can upgrade my listening skills over time. I can also learn to use the measuring instruments. I can learn to perform the ABX tests. But to sit in a Porsche and say that the guy in the Mustang doesn't know what he is doing is just plain silly.
More measurements = more information = more solid basis for decisions.
ensen
Dear Bratislav
I'm fully aware of peer review. That's why I believe that the scientific method can be applied. Of course... I expect that experiments and results must be repeatable for continued validation.
As to whether I hear the differences, I know that I have limits. There is a point beyond which I cannot hear. Please read all my posts (3?).
However, I will not disagree with those who claim to hear things I cannot. At some point we have to trust that people are telling their own truth. I would be more interested in finding a way to prove that someone can hear these differences, rather than disprove them. To me, SPL meter, multimeter, oscilloscope, microscope, eyes, ears, etc. are all instruments that our brains can use to determine our environment. If I could afford, and learn to use them all, I would. Until then, my body will help me decide.
Is not the ultimate signal processor in our brains. It is hooked up to all our senses. I just don't think we have maxed out its capability. On the other, current instruments and technology can tell us a lot, especially about the measurable values in our audio equipment.
As I said at the end of the last post, if you use only one type of measuring system, you cannot possibly make the best decisions about the equipment. Do you not test drive the car before buying it. Why? Because, even between units of the same model production line, there are variances and you want the best one for your money. Same for audio. Lot's of research so I can avoid the garbage right away and when I have a number of potential candidates, I go listen. I know that different speakers, components, cables etc. can/will affect the sound, but I can't bring all this test gear with me (besides, I don't know how to use them yet). I am forced to trust published specs and then go test driving.
Case in point. People put some faith in the automobile test comparisons. Why? Because they do not have the same skills/talents as the test drivers. They must trust the subjective opinions of these test drives. That does not mean they cannot tell the difference between a Hyundai and a Porsche. No... maybe they don't need the Porsche. Does that mean that a Mustang is not also worthwhile? Of course not. Some people can make the Mustang run circles around a Porsche driven by an amateur. Does that make the Mustang better. Probably not, just that the one driving the Porsche cannot fully appreciate its capabilities.
I am that person in the Porsche. Others can obviously afford Lambourghini. Many on this forum would like to hot rod a Mustang.
I can upgrade my listening skills over time. I can also learn to use the measuring instruments. I can learn to perform the ABX tests. But to sit in a Porsche and say that the guy in the Mustang doesn't know what he is doing is just plain silly.
More measurements = more information = more solid basis for decisions.
ensenSome last links
The following web page makes for some very interesting reading. Even if you don't agree with Doug Self, he backs up his position with 23 references. The page also has diagrams of the Baxandall and Hafler null testing setups.
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
The following page has a wealth of references on audio myths, psychoacoustics and more:
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id5.html
The following web page makes for some very interesting reading. Even if you don't agree with Doug Self, he backs up his position with 23 references. The page also has diagrams of the Baxandall and Hafler null testing setups.
http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm
The following page has a wealth of references on audio myths, psychoacoustics and more:
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id5.html
Blind testing
Blind testing can teach a lot.
Below I´ll tell some about two blind test me and a friend did.
My friend use to be a "you can´t hear that" type of pearson, not anymore though
Test 1:
Several years ago when my rig was veeeery much worse than the one I have now, still good by normal standards. Non treated living room and speakers 0.6m from closest wall. Speakers was two way Sonus Faber, expensive, beatiful but not particurlary resolving.
Digital source evaluation. Friend said "all CDP´s sound the same, it´s 1 and 0´s and since all have THD+N at 0.01% or so, they should sound the same.
My friends was connecting and disconnecting a Arcam Alpha5+ CDP, a Sony discman and a sony portable DAT.
In the sofa were myself and friends girlfriend with paper and pen.
My friend played back the same track ten times and we wrote down every time which machine we though was playing.
He altered between the three machines without giving us any clue whatsoever what he was doing.
Worth to notice is that these players were not level mathced, and in this case that was making it even harder because the thing was not to tell the difference but to name the player for each track.
The girlfiend could easily pick out the discman everytime, but mixed up the Arcam and DAT.
I could easily nail down everytime the discman played and also when the Arcam played and when the DAT played.
Test two:
A year ago we where looking for some new professional recording gear. We borrowed a matched pair of Earthworks QTC1 (I now own a pair) and also a DW Fearn tube micpre. Friend already had ART tube pre´s and Behringer and also have micpre´s on his 24 bit soundcard.
We recorded me singing and playing guitar. We had no way of exactly matching levels but did our best watching the meters.
The DW Fearn has 0.25% THD+N or lower (depending on settings) 0.02% IMD. The behringer and ART I don´t know but guess they have relatively low THD.
We recorded lots of tracks and my friend burned a CDR which I brought with me home. My friend had numbered the tracks (10 tracks) and he knew which was which, and of course I did not have a clue.
The DW Fearn was used for several tracks one with "clean" setting and one with "fat" setting.
Results;
I did not spend a lot of time but simply listened thru a couple of times took notes while listening and then called my friend to check out the results.
The preamps in the soundcard was really easy to hear, it sounded like ****, like it was broken (it was not).
The ART I picked out as well.
The DW Fearn I picked out as well, including telling which track was the "fat" one. What I could hear there was increased 2nd harmonics which gave a thick, smooth, "honey" sound which I perceived as to "sweet and pretty" and slow. This is why many studios like these triod amps, they make voices, strings and brass sound very warm and "natural".
The behringer I picked out as well.
What I did was mixing up the Behringer with the "clean setting" DW Fearn in two tracks.
This shows that even with non matched levels, both preamps and CDP´s can be separated in blind tests. And not only telling that it sounds different, but naming the particular DUT.
Since these tests, I know what I hear. I have tried some other stuff as well, under non-blind tests, and I expected differences (cables and vibration control) but could not detect any at all. So, sometimes the difference is there but not audible, and sometimes the difference is there and is clearly audible.
/Peter
Blind testing can teach a lot.
Below I´ll tell some about two blind test me and a friend did.
My friend use to be a "you can´t hear that" type of pearson, not anymore though
Test 1:
Several years ago when my rig was veeeery much worse than the one I have now, still good by normal standards. Non treated living room and speakers 0.6m from closest wall. Speakers was two way Sonus Faber, expensive, beatiful but not particurlary resolving.
Digital source evaluation. Friend said "all CDP´s sound the same, it´s 1 and 0´s and since all have THD+N at 0.01% or so, they should sound the same.
My friends was connecting and disconnecting a Arcam Alpha5+ CDP, a Sony discman and a sony portable DAT.
In the sofa were myself and friends girlfriend with paper and pen.
My friend played back the same track ten times and we wrote down every time which machine we though was playing.
He altered between the three machines without giving us any clue whatsoever what he was doing.
Worth to notice is that these players were not level mathced, and in this case that was making it even harder because the thing was not to tell the difference but to name the player for each track.
The girlfiend could easily pick out the discman everytime, but mixed up the Arcam and DAT.
I could easily nail down everytime the discman played and also when the Arcam played and when the DAT played.
Test two:
A year ago we where looking for some new professional recording gear. We borrowed a matched pair of Earthworks QTC1 (I now own a pair) and also a DW Fearn tube micpre. Friend already had ART tube pre´s and Behringer and also have micpre´s on his 24 bit soundcard.
We recorded me singing and playing guitar. We had no way of exactly matching levels but did our best watching the meters.
The DW Fearn has 0.25% THD+N or lower (depending on settings) 0.02% IMD. The behringer and ART I don´t know but guess they have relatively low THD.
We recorded lots of tracks and my friend burned a CDR which I brought with me home. My friend had numbered the tracks (10 tracks) and he knew which was which, and of course I did not have a clue.
The DW Fearn was used for several tracks one with "clean" setting and one with "fat" setting.
Results;
I did not spend a lot of time but simply listened thru a couple of times took notes while listening and then called my friend to check out the results.
The preamps in the soundcard was really easy to hear, it sounded like ****, like it was broken (it was not).
The ART I picked out as well.
The DW Fearn I picked out as well, including telling which track was the "fat" one. What I could hear there was increased 2nd harmonics which gave a thick, smooth, "honey" sound which I perceived as to "sweet and pretty" and slow. This is why many studios like these triod amps, they make voices, strings and brass sound very warm and "natural".
The behringer I picked out as well.
What I did was mixing up the Behringer with the "clean setting" DW Fearn in two tracks.
This shows that even with non matched levels, both preamps and CDP´s can be separated in blind tests. And not only telling that it sounds different, but naming the particular DUT.
Since these tests, I know what I hear. I have tried some other stuff as well, under non-blind tests, and I expected differences (cables and vibration control) but could not detect any at all. So, sometimes the difference is there but not audible, and sometimes the difference is there and is clearly audible.
/Peter
Didn´t check out the Self site but the other one "audiomyths".
I stopped reading very quickly when the author stated that any 12AWG cable will do for speaker wire and audible improvements would not be achieved going for quality wire.
He also states that component burn in is a myth (if I understand it correct).
Electronics and speaker drivers DO "burn in" or change the sound the first period in operation.
Clearly the guy has no idea what he´s talking about and what he write is not worth a penny IMO.
Another deaf guy with lively listening room and speakers with crappy polyprop or paper drivers $20 each.
Gimme a break
/Peter
I stopped reading very quickly when the author stated that any 12AWG cable will do for speaker wire and audible improvements would not be achieved going for quality wire.
He also states that component burn in is a myth (if I understand it correct).
Electronics and speaker drivers DO "burn in" or change the sound the first period in operation.
Clearly the guy has no idea what he´s talking about and what he write is not worth a penny IMO.
Another deaf guy with lively listening room and speakers with crappy polyprop or paper drivers $20 each.
Gimme a break
/Peter
Well, he lists dozens of references, most all of them published in well regarded publications. The guy who authored the website is only summarizing the information in those references. I'm sorry, but he has a mountain of well documented evidence on his side, and you have very very little OBJECTIVE evidence on your side.Pan said:
DISTORTED VIEWS.
Hi,
You seem to heavily rely on someone else's work, which you call evidence.
BTW:rolling of HF response in a cable is a design choice probably meant to reduce HF grunge in CDP replay.
While I wouldn't design cables like that I can understand someone going to market with such a design.
And HF roll of is NOT a distortion per se in my book, if it were you can pretty much accuse 75% of all tubeamp designers of "intentionally " distorting the signal.
And I'm still waiting for some brandnames here, if you feel it's inapropriate you can have the info e-mailed to me.
In case you need advise on cable design, I can give you some too for free provided you stop shooting yourself in the foot by trying to put the blame on someone else for your situation here.
If you don't like it, ignore it...you'll be soo much better of.
Cheers,
Hi,
You seem to heavily rely on someone else's work, which you call evidence.
BTW:rolling of HF response in a cable is a design choice probably meant to reduce HF grunge in CDP replay.
While I wouldn't design cables like that I can understand someone going to market with such a design.
And HF roll of is NOT a distortion per se in my book, if it were you can pretty much accuse 75% of all tubeamp designers of "intentionally " distorting the signal.
And I'm still waiting for some brandnames here, if you feel it's inapropriate you can have the info e-mailed to me.
In case you need advise on cable design, I can give you some too for free provided you stop shooting yourself in the foot by trying to put the blame on someone else for your situation here.
If you don't like it, ignore it...you'll be soo much better of.
Cheers,
Re: Some last links
.....nw-avphile, i have long since given up on some of these good folks recognising the truth if it stood up and peed on them...giving them references to read is equally pointless, as they tend to post a 'critique', (eg pan, and fdegrove), before examining said refs.
nw_avphile said:
.....nw-avphile, i have long since given up on some of these good folks recognising the truth if it stood up and peed on them...giving them references to read is equally pointless, as they tend to post a 'critique', (eg pan, and fdegrove), before examining said refs.
mikek,
I´ve spent hundereds of hours reading different sites/tests on internet and I´ve learned a lot.
One thing I´ve learned is that there are plenty of tests done by "big names" and often there are obvious factors that makes their tests really bad ones.
The site I did visit by nw_awphile I stopped reading when I realised there where serious limitations in what the guy knew about audio.
I´m sure some of the links in that site leads to properly excecuted tests in some areas. But since the guy that run the site has so bad understanding about audio I didn´t care to spend (waist) more time on reading tests and conlusion that he refers to.
A guy that propose that loudspeaker drivers and electronics ca n not "burn in" for better sound has very limited experience of high quality audio. He didn´t particurlary mention electronics, but speakers and wires/cables. I assume if he believes a electromechanical device can not change in performance, I guess we wouldn´t ever understand that a pure electronic device could do the same. Also stating that there´s no meanig in searching out a good cable beacuase there is no audible reward in that, clearly shows he has no clue as to what he speaks about.
The guy should try to learn more about high performance audio himself instead of trying to convince other people of how wrong some others are.
I search the truth constantly and have a very good understanding about audio. Maybe some day some guys at this and other board that believe everything sound the same, will experience high quality audio reproduction, and se/hear the truth for them self instead of living in the past where the earth is flat and bacterias do not exist.
/Peter
I´ve spent hundereds of hours reading different sites/tests on internet and I´ve learned a lot.
One thing I´ve learned is that there are plenty of tests done by "big names" and often there are obvious factors that makes their tests really bad ones.
The site I did visit by nw_awphile I stopped reading when I realised there where serious limitations in what the guy knew about audio.
I´m sure some of the links in that site leads to properly excecuted tests in some areas. But since the guy that run the site has so bad understanding about audio I didn´t care to spend (waist) more time on reading tests and conlusion that he refers to
.A guy that propose that loudspeaker drivers and electronics ca n not "burn in" for better sound has very limited experience of high quality audio. He didn´t particurlary mention electronics, but speakers and wires/cables. I assume if he believes a electromechanical device can not change in performance, I guess we wouldn´t ever understand that a pure electronic device could do the same. Also stating that there´s no meanig in searching out a good cable beacuase there is no audible reward in that, clearly shows he has no clue as to what he speaks about.
The guy should try to learn more about high performance audio himself instead of trying to convince other people of how wrong some others are.
I search the truth constantly and have a very good understanding about audio. Maybe some day some guys at this and other board that believe everything sound the same, will experience high quality audio reproduction, and se/hear the truth for them self instead of living in the past where the earth is flat and bacterias do not exist.
/Peter
Pan said:mikek,
I´ve spent hundereds of hours reading different sites/tests on internet and I´ve learned a lot.
One thing I´ve learned is that there are plenty of tests done by "big names" and often there are obvious factors that makes their tests really bad ones.
The site I did visit by nw_awphile I stopped reading when I realised there where serious limitations in what the guy knew about audio.
I´m sure some of the links in that site leads to properly excecuted tests in some areas. But since the guy that run the site has so bad understanding about audio I didn´t care to spend (waist) more time on reading tests and conlusion that he refers to
A guy that propose that loudspeaker drivers and electronics ca n not "burn in" for better sound has very limited experience of high quality audio. He didn´t particurlary mention electronics, but speakers and wires/cables. I assume if he believes a electromechanical device can not change in performance, I guess we wouldn´t ever understand that a pure electronic device could do the same. Also stating that there´s no meanig in searching out a good cable beacuase there is no audible reward in that, clearly shows he has no clue as to what he speaks about.
The guy should try to learn more about high performance audio himself instead of trying to convince other people of how wrong some others are.
I search the truth constantly and have a very good understanding about audio. Maybe some day some guys at this and other board that believe everything sound the same, will experience high quality audio reproduction, and se/hear the truth for them self instead of living in the past where the earth is flat and bacterias do not exist.
/Peter
Hi pan,
I do'nt think the idea here is that you take everything you are told at face value, or indeed that you have to believe everything in every article, book, or paper.......the idea is to pick out the wheat and discard the chaff....and not to throw the baby out with the bath water...
i for instance, do not believe everything D. Self has to say on amp. design...for good solid, technical, and i believe, unassailable reasons....that does not mean that you'll find his work in my dustbin!!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.