Re: More pot stirring!
jam said:Keith,
> Great comeback.
Thank you. I try my best.
> By your reasoning what is a competently designed
> amplifier?
A competently designed amplifier? One that has about 3Hz to 50kHz bandwidth (any more it's likely to be marginally stable or even unstable), slew rate to handle a full voltage swing at 50KHz, THD about .05% or less across the rated bandwidth, noise about -80dB or better, unconditionally stable into its rated loads, sufficient current output to drive its rated loads to full output.
> If you exclude almost everything for some reason or
> another we are back to the fact that all amplifiers do not
> sound the same.
How so?
> I have conducted the experiment as you described and
> everyone involved was able to tell the difference between
> the two amplifiers under test.
Was it double blind? Or did the participants know which amplifier was being used at the time? What experimental controls did you use?
> I would like to know what amplifiers (brands and models)
> you consider competently designed and what speakers you
> used as a reference?
Unfair question about the amplifiers. I'm not going to answer it as I'd leave myself wide open to legal action particularly under New Zealand's slander and libel laws.
Speakers... a pair fron Elektor several years ago. Uses Dynaudio D28/2 and 17W75 in a 10 litre cabinet shaped a bit like a wedge. Suits my house.
> Regards,
> Jam
> P.S. Remember TIM distortion that Matti Ottola discovered
> (or invented), that was supposed to be the definitive test
> for amplifier performance, has fallen by the wayside. I
> still maintain we have not discovered all the measurement
> criteria that an amplifier should be judged by.
I remember that. Found to be slew limiting. Leach called it TID. There's an article that analysed it and decided that it was the effect of slew limiting (I can't find the source as I threw out most of my audio stuff years ago).
It's interesting to note just as an aside. I dropped out of audio about 7 or 8 years ago in disgust at all the cable and other rubbish that was going on. I've come back over the last year and picked up on the state of the art. As far as I can tell, it hasn't really changed in all that time. Why?
> Grey,
> Where were you when we needed you?
He's around......
regards, Keith
[Edited by jam on 07-06-2001 at 10:22 PM]
Keith,
I'm not prone to inserting text from others' posts, as mine are long enough already. I'll try to keep these more-or-less in order so you can pop back and forth.
-I can remember nuance. This is, I believe, a matter of practice. Elsewhere I pointed out that people who are stricken blind develop their hearing. My goal has been to develop mine without having to lose my eyesight. There's no reason why anyone who cares to educate their hearing can't do so.
-I prefer, whenever possible, to have two pieces of equipment on hand for comparison at the same time. In the cases where that's not possible, I use a really handy invention--pen and paper. I take notes. It helps jog my memory,"Oh, yeah, that's right, that other amp did such-and-such." Kind of a laundry list of things to look for. "The drums imaged well." Okay, I make a point of listening to the drums on the same cut. Nothing to it. It either images as well or not. I can remember the image, and use it to compare with what's happening with the current piece. Inevitably, I hear something else, and want to compare back to the first piece. That's when I get frustrated if I don't have both on hand.
-If I understand you correctly, you're saying that only sight can be a proper observation. Not true. We have five senses and any of them can be used for observations. For someone who accuses others of putting up strawmen, you sure use a lot of them, yourself.
-Galileo had no way of knowing what he'd see when he looked at Jupiter. He looked. He observed moons. By definition--you don't know what you don't know. That's why people explore or conduct undirected research is to find out new things. You refer to double blind testing. Someone else looking to find moons around Jupiter isn't double blind testing, just simple verification. Distortion specs are virtually useless as descriptors of amplifier sound quality (elseways, two amps with the same specs would sound the same, and they don't), but you'll never know that unless you listen. Reading spec sheets will not reveal that. Only listening. To say that, well, yes, I heard something, but it wasn't the amp...couldn't be...er, it was because my cat walked across my lap, or because the moon was in the wrong phase, or because the carpet hasn't been vacuumed, is intellectually dishonest. You heard something. It was the amp. Get over it. Control as many variables as you can, then admit that there's something there.
-Related to the above--audio is repeatable. I have in house a pair of speaker cables (MIT) that belong to a friend of mine. He wanted me to listen to them and brought them over. I listened and reported what I heard. It matched exactly what he heard, even on different systems. (Honestly, I don't care for the sound of the cables, so that tends to blow all that 'but you had expectations' nonsense into a cocked hat. It's possible to be objective about these things. I've heard other cables of theirs in the past that sounded good, but these were a severe disappointment.) Yes, there are cases where people hear different things on different systems, but that's part of the observational process. If, hypothetically, a particular amp mates well with one speaker, but not with another, you can begin to develop ideas such as amplifiers with low damping factors shouldn't be used with bass reflex speakers. Until you have enough cumulative experience with various amps and speakers, you won't know that there's a problem. Incidentally, this was another case where you threw up a strawman.
-Hypothesis can't come before observation, elseways, there's nothing to hypothesize about. I should think that would be clear enough. Another strawman. Or perhaps just muddy thinking.
-I don't own Self or Slone. I checked them out from the library earlier this year. I declined to buy them, as the books were nearly useless, unless you want to build one of their circuits (I'm not interested). I believe that it was Self who acknowledged the absolute phase issue (which, incidentally, was only an example of subjective listeners being finally proved right [yet again]). It was towards the front of the book, perhaps second, third, or fourth chapters. I don't remember which edition of the book (isn't Self's book out in at least two editions?). It's possible that I made a note of it in the Opti-MOS thread, as there was some discussion similar to this in that thread.
-We are agreed on speaker distortion. I won't take up space here on this, as I'm on record elsewhere about it. One of my (long-delayed) projects is servo loops to go into my subs.
-A purely personal question...if, as you seem to indicate, audio is such a bleak, pathetic, and hopeless pursuit...why do you bother with it? I can create a pretty realistic experience here. Is it perfect? No. But I don't feel the need to throw up my hands and say,'There's no use in trying...might as well just read distortion specs, as listening is futile.' A decent high end system will reveal an awful lot of detail. In my experience, it's people with mid-fi systems who deny that there's anything there. Why? Because their systems can't resolve the details. So, in a sense, they're right, in a self-fulfilling prophecy way. *They* can't hear the things others report hearing, not because there's necessarily anything wrong with their hearing, but because their equipment isn't up to the task. And so they deny that it's there. Galileo's telescope was sufficient to discover the moons of Jupiter, but the monsters we have today are capable of much, much more.
Grey
I'm not prone to inserting text from others' posts, as mine are long enough already. I'll try to keep these more-or-less in order so you can pop back and forth.
-I can remember nuance. This is, I believe, a matter of practice. Elsewhere I pointed out that people who are stricken blind develop their hearing. My goal has been to develop mine without having to lose my eyesight. There's no reason why anyone who cares to educate their hearing can't do so.
-I prefer, whenever possible, to have two pieces of equipment on hand for comparison at the same time. In the cases where that's not possible, I use a really handy invention--pen and paper. I take notes. It helps jog my memory,"Oh, yeah, that's right, that other amp did such-and-such." Kind of a laundry list of things to look for. "The drums imaged well." Okay, I make a point of listening to the drums on the same cut. Nothing to it. It either images as well or not. I can remember the image, and use it to compare with what's happening with the current piece. Inevitably, I hear something else, and want to compare back to the first piece. That's when I get frustrated if I don't have both on hand.
-If I understand you correctly, you're saying that only sight can be a proper observation. Not true. We have five senses and any of them can be used for observations. For someone who accuses others of putting up strawmen, you sure use a lot of them, yourself.
-Galileo had no way of knowing what he'd see when he looked at Jupiter. He looked. He observed moons. By definition--you don't know what you don't know. That's why people explore or conduct undirected research is to find out new things. You refer to double blind testing. Someone else looking to find moons around Jupiter isn't double blind testing, just simple verification. Distortion specs are virtually useless as descriptors of amplifier sound quality (elseways, two amps with the same specs would sound the same, and they don't), but you'll never know that unless you listen. Reading spec sheets will not reveal that. Only listening. To say that, well, yes, I heard something, but it wasn't the amp...couldn't be...er, it was because my cat walked across my lap, or because the moon was in the wrong phase, or because the carpet hasn't been vacuumed, is intellectually dishonest. You heard something. It was the amp. Get over it. Control as many variables as you can, then admit that there's something there.
-Related to the above--audio is repeatable. I have in house a pair of speaker cables (MIT) that belong to a friend of mine. He wanted me to listen to them and brought them over. I listened and reported what I heard. It matched exactly what he heard, even on different systems. (Honestly, I don't care for the sound of the cables, so that tends to blow all that 'but you had expectations' nonsense into a cocked hat. It's possible to be objective about these things. I've heard other cables of theirs in the past that sounded good, but these were a severe disappointment.) Yes, there are cases where people hear different things on different systems, but that's part of the observational process. If, hypothetically, a particular amp mates well with one speaker, but not with another, you can begin to develop ideas such as amplifiers with low damping factors shouldn't be used with bass reflex speakers. Until you have enough cumulative experience with various amps and speakers, you won't know that there's a problem. Incidentally, this was another case where you threw up a strawman.
-Hypothesis can't come before observation, elseways, there's nothing to hypothesize about. I should think that would be clear enough. Another strawman. Or perhaps just muddy thinking.
-I don't own Self or Slone. I checked them out from the library earlier this year. I declined to buy them, as the books were nearly useless, unless you want to build one of their circuits (I'm not interested). I believe that it was Self who acknowledged the absolute phase issue (which, incidentally, was only an example of subjective listeners being finally proved right [yet again]). It was towards the front of the book, perhaps second, third, or fourth chapters. I don't remember which edition of the book (isn't Self's book out in at least two editions?). It's possible that I made a note of it in the Opti-MOS thread, as there was some discussion similar to this in that thread.
-We are agreed on speaker distortion. I won't take up space here on this, as I'm on record elsewhere about it. One of my (long-delayed) projects is servo loops to go into my subs.
-A purely personal question...if, as you seem to indicate, audio is such a bleak, pathetic, and hopeless pursuit...why do you bother with it? I can create a pretty realistic experience here. Is it perfect? No. But I don't feel the need to throw up my hands and say,'There's no use in trying...might as well just read distortion specs, as listening is futile.' A decent high end system will reveal an awful lot of detail. In my experience, it's people with mid-fi systems who deny that there's anything there. Why? Because their systems can't resolve the details. So, in a sense, they're right, in a self-fulfilling prophecy way. *They* can't hear the things others report hearing, not because there's necessarily anything wrong with their hearing, but because their equipment isn't up to the task. And so they deny that it's there. Galileo's telescope was sufficient to discover the moons of Jupiter, but the monsters we have today are capable of much, much more.
Grey
Keith, you said, “As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an amplifier is to reproduce a facsimile of a piece of music as accurately as possible. If I wanted to fiddle with it, I can do that in controllable ways using outboard processing. I want the music to sound warm? Add some second harmonic. I want the music to sound tizzy? Add some highs. AMPLIFIERS HAVE LITTLE OR NO CONTROL OVER SUCH THINGS”. Had much experience with audio amplifier design?
“A competently designed amplifier? One that has about 3Hz to 50kHz bandwidth (any more it's likely to be marginally stable or even unstable), slew rate to handle a full voltage swing at 50KHz, THD about .05% or less across the rated bandwidth, noise about -80dB or better, unconditionally stable into its rated loads, sufficient current output to drive its rated loads to full output.” Those specs are not difficult to achieve, hence by your reasoning all amplifiers with these specifications are competently designed and will therefore sound identical. Well, if you wish to believe this then you are naturally free to have this opinion.
The fact is, we know from experience, well most of us anyway, that different amplifiers DO sound different, even those that fit your criteria as being “competently designed”. Hence if they sound different then I agree it must be possible to measure differences between them. So what do we measure Keith? The most basic specifications you provided will not tell the whole story, and of that I’m sure you will agree. A cheap Korean car may have identical performance to a BMW in terms of power, number of doors, and even colour. Both will get you from A to B in the same time. So why would anyone ever want to buy a BMW? They’re identical in every way right? Well obviously not, yet how do we measure the difference between these two cars. If we were not familiar with either we would be forced to read a journalist’s SUBJECTIVE assessment of the differences.
Finally, “For a thing to be observed it must be seen. Do you see sound?” you are taking the literal interpretation of the term “observation” Keith. If you closed your eyes and I punched you in your nose your observation (ie detailed examination. Collins Dictionary) of this event would most likely be that it hurt right? Did you see the event?
Cheers,
Pete
“A competently designed amplifier? One that has about 3Hz to 50kHz bandwidth (any more it's likely to be marginally stable or even unstable), slew rate to handle a full voltage swing at 50KHz, THD about .05% or less across the rated bandwidth, noise about -80dB or better, unconditionally stable into its rated loads, sufficient current output to drive its rated loads to full output.” Those specs are not difficult to achieve, hence by your reasoning all amplifiers with these specifications are competently designed and will therefore sound identical. Well, if you wish to believe this then you are naturally free to have this opinion.
The fact is, we know from experience, well most of us anyway, that different amplifiers DO sound different, even those that fit your criteria as being “competently designed”. Hence if they sound different then I agree it must be possible to measure differences between them. So what do we measure Keith? The most basic specifications you provided will not tell the whole story, and of that I’m sure you will agree. A cheap Korean car may have identical performance to a BMW in terms of power, number of doors, and even colour. Both will get you from A to B in the same time. So why would anyone ever want to buy a BMW? They’re identical in every way right? Well obviously not, yet how do we measure the difference between these two cars. If we were not familiar with either we would be forced to read a journalist’s SUBJECTIVE assessment of the differences.
Finally, “For a thing to be observed it must be seen. Do you see sound?” you are taking the literal interpretation of the term “observation” Keith. If you closed your eyes and I punched you in your nose your observation (ie detailed examination. Collins Dictionary) of this event would most likely be that it hurt right? Did you see the event?
Cheers,
Pete
OH MY LORD !!!! ........ no offence meant to the religious types ;-)
As I'm not an engineer and don't believe in arguing "out of my league", I'm gonna leave the majority of this alone ...... all except for one point !
My friend Grey writes, "Double blind studies aren't necessary for audio (although some people will argue this until they're blue in the face, mainly because they don't understand the scientific process). Why? Because all we need to do is satisfy ourselves that amplifiers *do* sound different. That's purely observational."
OK ....... I'll go "blue in the face" !!
Simple observation will never suffice for audio. Why? Well because of observer bias .... simple.
Virtually everyone who has written to this post has some preconceived notion regarding what they believe is true/important/best/whatever. If we ask these people to "observe" a set of raw data (alright, music if you like) then their individual perceptions will vary ...... this is called "observer bias" and is a REAL, clearly demonstrated phenomenon which actually MANDATES "blinding".
Without blinding, you are just giving me opinions (not worthless - I accept), not scientific evidence. You can keep telling me its "science" until your blue in the face, but the inherent BIAS makes it flawed.
The poor HiFi "sucker" who just paid $500/m for his/her speaker cable is compelled to "hear a difference" ...... is this difference real or imaginary due to bias?
To convince me you will need to show me something like this:
____________________________________________________
Lets be able to blindly switch between "Mr Megabucks Million Dollar Cable" or some reasonable speaker interconnect cable (FWIW, I use OFC 12mm diameter multistrand welding cable ...... Note, there is little point comparing 0.10c/m cable, as we can easily *measure* this difference here!)
Lets get 25-50 listeners, preferably discerning audiophiles. Lets ask them to either (1) rank the cables in order of superiority, or (2) select which they believe they are listening to, knowing the 2 options.
(alright, for the stats folks we would actually use repeated measures ANOVA, I know ..... but lets keep it simple)
Now ... some science can follow. I can then tell you the *likelihood* that people can actually hear a difference.
_____________________________________________________
To run this sort of study takes time, effort and MONEY. I will bet you Mr Megabucks will never run this study ...... rather, he will quote the subjective opinions of discerning listeners (many of whom write for magazines and may or may not have been taken out to lunch, or who live off the advertising revenue provided).
I am NOT suggesting there are no differences between amplifiers ..... you know I believe differences do exist!
HOWEVER ...... the suggestion that requiring more than subjective observation is "because they don't understand the scientific process" I think is a little thin (I'm trying to be polite here).
We follow this with, "Science begins (much to some peoples' consternation) with observation. Period" ......
Ah, yes, but it does NOT END THERE !!!!!!!!
We *begin* with observation. We think there is a *difference*. Then we construct experiment and trial to minimize errors and bias which may mislead. Then we *repeat* these experiments/trials under different circumstances. Then we might be able to say, with some authority of scientific method, "we believe a true difference exists".
This IS scientific method ..... the former just opinion.
Cheers
Mark
As I'm not an engineer and don't believe in arguing "out of my league", I'm gonna leave the majority of this alone ...... all except for one point !
My friend Grey writes, "Double blind studies aren't necessary for audio (although some people will argue this until they're blue in the face, mainly because they don't understand the scientific process). Why? Because all we need to do is satisfy ourselves that amplifiers *do* sound different. That's purely observational."
OK ....... I'll go "blue in the face" !!
Simple observation will never suffice for audio. Why? Well because of observer bias .... simple.
Virtually everyone who has written to this post has some preconceived notion regarding what they believe is true/important/best/whatever. If we ask these people to "observe" a set of raw data (alright, music if you like) then their individual perceptions will vary ...... this is called "observer bias" and is a REAL, clearly demonstrated phenomenon which actually MANDATES "blinding".
Without blinding, you are just giving me opinions (not worthless - I accept), not scientific evidence. You can keep telling me its "science" until your blue in the face, but the inherent BIAS makes it flawed.
The poor HiFi "sucker" who just paid $500/m for his/her speaker cable is compelled to "hear a difference" ...... is this difference real or imaginary due to bias?
To convince me you will need to show me something like this:
____________________________________________________
Lets be able to blindly switch between "Mr Megabucks Million Dollar Cable" or some reasonable speaker interconnect cable (FWIW, I use OFC 12mm diameter multistrand welding cable ...... Note, there is little point comparing 0.10c/m cable, as we can easily *measure* this difference here!)
Lets get 25-50 listeners, preferably discerning audiophiles. Lets ask them to either (1) rank the cables in order of superiority, or (2) select which they believe they are listening to, knowing the 2 options.
(alright, for the stats folks we would actually use repeated measures ANOVA, I know ..... but lets keep it simple)
Now ... some science can follow. I can then tell you the *likelihood* that people can actually hear a difference.
_____________________________________________________
To run this sort of study takes time, effort and MONEY. I will bet you Mr Megabucks will never run this study ...... rather, he will quote the subjective opinions of discerning listeners (many of whom write for magazines and may or may not have been taken out to lunch, or who live off the advertising revenue provided).
I am NOT suggesting there are no differences between amplifiers ..... you know I believe differences do exist!
HOWEVER ...... the suggestion that requiring more than subjective observation is "because they don't understand the scientific process" I think is a little thin (I'm trying to be polite here).
We follow this with, "Science begins (much to some peoples' consternation) with observation. Period" ......
Ah, yes, but it does NOT END THERE !!!!!!!!
We *begin* with observation. We think there is a *difference*. Then we construct experiment and trial to minimize errors and bias which may mislead. Then we *repeat* these experiments/trials under different circumstances. Then we might be able to say, with some authority of scientific method, "we believe a true difference exists".
This IS scientific method ..... the former just opinion.
Cheers
Mark
Scientific methodology has a few things we have to consider to be real science and not science fiction.
Science starts first as many said here with observation. Observation for something we think exists or just observation to find the unknown. If there is something found it doesn´t mean that we can prove it. Maybe we see something but why should anybody believe you when you report what you have found ? That´s where experiments come in. We have to repeat the observed either in it´s real enviroment or in an artificial enviroment. When we can repeat a phenomena we can prove and we can make rules. These rules are what we use to work with and continue research. For instance we can prove today that a fullrange speaker 300-3000 HZ sounds bad and can´t sound good because it can´t reproduct the whole audio band.There are a lot of things though that we can see and repeat but can´t understand how they work. That means we cant explain them in means of rules and theory. These things we can say exist but we can´t describe them so someone else can say the opposite as well and the battle goes on with no meaning. Like people say cables sound differnet and others not. Or that different mains power cables sound different or not.
About blind tests now sometimes they are good sometimes not. We say sometimes that a test had different results. That doesnt say anything. Even if the people were voting in random it means we would have different results anyway.
Science starts first as many said here with observation. Observation for something we think exists or just observation to find the unknown. If there is something found it doesn´t mean that we can prove it. Maybe we see something but why should anybody believe you when you report what you have found ? That´s where experiments come in. We have to repeat the observed either in it´s real enviroment or in an artificial enviroment. When we can repeat a phenomena we can prove and we can make rules. These rules are what we use to work with and continue research. For instance we can prove today that a fullrange speaker 300-3000 HZ sounds bad and can´t sound good because it can´t reproduct the whole audio band.There are a lot of things though that we can see and repeat but can´t understand how they work. That means we cant explain them in means of rules and theory. These things we can say exist but we can´t describe them so someone else can say the opposite as well and the battle goes on with no meaning. Like people say cables sound differnet and others not. Or that different mains power cables sound different or not.
About blind tests now sometimes they are good sometimes not. We say sometimes that a test had different results. That doesnt say anything. Even if the people were voting in random it means we would have different results anyway.
To continue from the above:
P: "There are a lot of things though that we can see and repeat but can´t understand how they work. That means we cant explain them in means of rules and theory. These things we can say exist so someone else can say the opposite as well and the battle goes on with no meaning."
No problem here.
"Like people say cables sound differnet and others not. Or that different mains power cables sound different or not."
Not true here! People hear a difference when they know what they are listening to .....
My study was to see if this "difference" existed in a blinded environment. Can the person who states emphatically that cable 'A' is superior to cable 'B' tell the difference "better than chance guessing" when they are blinded as to which they are listening ??
Lets take another highly subjective example .... wine.
Now to win a gold medal at a major show, the wine has to be judged "blindly" by a number of judges, the points are averaged and the "best wine wins" ...... not perfect, but not bad either. This doesn't mean you should not drink a wine if it's taste appeals to you, not the judges - I am not saying this!!!
However, HiFi awards are completely open (on average) and the potential for bias is far TOO HIGH !!!
There is far too much vested interest, fragile ego to protect, and BS in the HiFi industry for my liking ...... and I do like HiFi.
I am not suggesting highly expensive brands are not better "on average" than cheap ones ..... however, a lot of what is proported to make "astonishing sonic difference" I do not believe would stand-up to true scientific scrutiny.
No-one in the industry is going to put this to the test...... they have too much at stake !!!!!
cheers
mark
P: "There are a lot of things though that we can see and repeat but can´t understand how they work. That means we cant explain them in means of rules and theory. These things we can say exist so someone else can say the opposite as well and the battle goes on with no meaning."
No problem here.
"Like people say cables sound differnet and others not. Or that different mains power cables sound different or not."
Not true here! People hear a difference when they know what they are listening to .....
My study was to see if this "difference" existed in a blinded environment. Can the person who states emphatically that cable 'A' is superior to cable 'B' tell the difference "better than chance guessing" when they are blinded as to which they are listening ??
Lets take another highly subjective example .... wine.
Now to win a gold medal at a major show, the wine has to be judged "blindly" by a number of judges, the points are averaged and the "best wine wins" ...... not perfect, but not bad either. This doesn't mean you should not drink a wine if it's taste appeals to you, not the judges - I am not saying this!!!
However, HiFi awards are completely open (on average) and the potential for bias is far TOO HIGH !!!
There is far too much vested interest, fragile ego to protect, and BS in the HiFi industry for my liking ...... and I do like HiFi.
I am not suggesting highly expensive brands are not better "on average" than cheap ones ..... however, a lot of what is proported to make "astonishing sonic difference" I do not believe would stand-up to true scientific scrutiny.
No-one in the industry is going to put this to the test...... they have too much at stake !!!!!
cheers
mark
I agree with that a 100%.
There is too much in between the hi fi equipment and the ears. Too much money.
From a visit to a good expo hi-fi or hi-end whatever, everything is becoming high end these days, anybody can see (or better hear) that the cheaper commercial products sound better and better till excelent I could say. I mean the ones who give a little attention to the design not all of them. Last time I was at a high-end expo I saw so many normal brands that I thought I was at a normal hifi commercial expo. But the damn things sounded good.
So there "has" to be a cloud of mystery and magic generated around the very expensive equipment so they can sell. If you can buy lets say something with 500$ and to get something a little better (10% better lets say) you have to pay 3000$, well no thanks. You can´t convince me with scientific info that show a small difference in specs and an even smaller diference in sound. Specs that don´t tell me anything in the first place. You have to start some fairy tale with magic elements and wonder components and mystik guru designers that whatever he touches becomes gold.
About blind tests and so on tests. I don´t really believe magazines or reports anymore. I know that a lot of magazines, not all of them, don´t even do fully correct tests. They promote what is in their interest, they copy other articles, write good critics of the machines that got voted or awards and so on. Because a lot of these people don´t really know or the magazines just simply don´t have enough time to test with all that is going on in the market. Or some people just want to sell magazines and they don´t want to go against whats in. There are new things coming out everyday.
So we have to find a measure somewhere and cool down. I think personal experience is the only guide. Hard but true. It costs sometimes too. We have to hear some real music to get on the ground of reality.
There is too much in between the hi fi equipment and the ears. Too much money.
From a visit to a good expo hi-fi or hi-end whatever, everything is becoming high end these days, anybody can see (or better hear) that the cheaper commercial products sound better and better till excelent I could say. I mean the ones who give a little attention to the design not all of them. Last time I was at a high-end expo I saw so many normal brands that I thought I was at a normal hifi commercial expo. But the damn things sounded good.
So there "has" to be a cloud of mystery and magic generated around the very expensive equipment so they can sell. If you can buy lets say something with 500$ and to get something a little better (10% better lets say) you have to pay 3000$, well no thanks. You can´t convince me with scientific info that show a small difference in specs and an even smaller diference in sound. Specs that don´t tell me anything in the first place. You have to start some fairy tale with magic elements and wonder components and mystik guru designers that whatever he touches becomes gold.
About blind tests and so on tests. I don´t really believe magazines or reports anymore. I know that a lot of magazines, not all of them, don´t even do fully correct tests. They promote what is in their interest, they copy other articles, write good critics of the machines that got voted or awards and so on. Because a lot of these people don´t really know or the magazines just simply don´t have enough time to test with all that is going on in the market. Or some people just want to sell magazines and they don´t want to go against whats in. There are new things coming out everyday.
So we have to find a measure somewhere and cool down. I think personal experience is the only guide. Hard but true. It costs sometimes too. We have to hear some real music to get on the ground of reality.
There's so much more to this than specs though
The mechanics of audio tell you so little about the most important aspect, i.e. how communicative it is.
If you consider the most basic system, a telephone, and on the other end is someone you know, you'll probably recognise them just from an intake of breath. By the time they've said a few words not only will you be certain who it is, but also what mood they are in.
The telephone system has portrayed a massive amount of emotional detail down a line with 3kHz bandwidth and a dynamic range of about 30 or so dB!
It's just this basic information that so many items of Hi-Fi totally and utterly fail to reproduce. These are also the most important bits, the bits that turn adequate into awesome musicians, the difference between soporiphic and captivating.
None of my test gear has an 'analyse emotional content of music' button, but this is just the thing I want my Hi-Fi to do.
Andy
The mechanics of audio tell you so little about the most important aspect, i.e. how communicative it is.
If you consider the most basic system, a telephone, and on the other end is someone you know, you'll probably recognise them just from an intake of breath. By the time they've said a few words not only will you be certain who it is, but also what mood they are in.
The telephone system has portrayed a massive amount of emotional detail down a line with 3kHz bandwidth and a dynamic range of about 30 or so dB!
It's just this basic information that so many items of Hi-Fi totally and utterly fail to reproduce. These are also the most important bits, the bits that turn adequate into awesome musicians, the difference between soporiphic and captivating.
None of my test gear has an 'analyse emotional content of music' button, but this is just the thing I want my Hi-Fi to do.
Andy
Observational bias.
Dear folks.
It's been interesting reading the responses to my posts and the convolutions some of you go through to support your model of the audio world.
First a summary of the scientific method as it was explained to me by a lecturer a long time ago....
1. I think I know the mechanism behind the sky is blue.
2. I make an hypothesis. This is an educated guess as to the mechanism. "There are angels painting the damned thing".
3. I test the hypothesis. It fails.
4. I redesign the hypothesis. "The air filters out all bu the blue light". (I know this is wrong... but what the hey).
5. I retest the hypothesis. Hey, it works.
6. I recast the hypothesis as a theory. A theory explains all known (to me) causes of the sky being blue.
7. Now I publish and wait for the sky to fall.
Now lots of others go looking for the cause. They repeat my experiments and observations and verify them. Hey, my theory is right. Great. For the moment.
So, in order for my science to be accepted there needs to be two things...
1. Repeatability. Others have to be able to repeat my experiments etc.
2. Potential falsifiability. There need to be ways that you can prove my theory wrong.
If it's outside these criteria then it's unscientific and in the realm of magic.
I submit that most of the subjective world of audio is in the world of magic simply because it fails repeatability and potential falsifiability. I also submit that this is causing vast damage to the world of audio, preventing it from advancing.
Now back to my posts... it's interesting to note that few of the subjective crowd addressed the substantive points of my posts, seizing instead on minor issues and dealing to those.
And Grey, I did put up a few strawmen. You saw them. Good.
So for the subjective mob out there, how about addressing the substantive issues instead of picking minor points and talking about those. Please go through the posts again and try to demolish them in a substantive manner.
regards, Keith
Dear folks.
It's been interesting reading the responses to my posts and the convolutions some of you go through to support your model of the audio world.
First a summary of the scientific method as it was explained to me by a lecturer a long time ago....
1. I think I know the mechanism behind the sky is blue.
2. I make an hypothesis. This is an educated guess as to the mechanism. "There are angels painting the damned thing".
3. I test the hypothesis. It fails.
4. I redesign the hypothesis. "The air filters out all bu the blue light". (I know this is wrong... but what the hey).
5. I retest the hypothesis. Hey, it works.
6. I recast the hypothesis as a theory. A theory explains all known (to me) causes of the sky being blue.
7. Now I publish and wait for the sky to fall.
Now lots of others go looking for the cause. They repeat my experiments and observations and verify them. Hey, my theory is right. Great. For the moment.
So, in order for my science to be accepted there needs to be two things...
1. Repeatability. Others have to be able to repeat my experiments etc.
2. Potential falsifiability. There need to be ways that you can prove my theory wrong.
If it's outside these criteria then it's unscientific and in the realm of magic.
I submit that most of the subjective world of audio is in the world of magic simply because it fails repeatability and potential falsifiability. I also submit that this is causing vast damage to the world of audio, preventing it from advancing.
Now back to my posts... it's interesting to note that few of the subjective crowd addressed the substantive points of my posts, seizing instead on minor issues and dealing to those.
And Grey, I did put up a few strawmen. You saw them. Good.
So for the subjective mob out there, how about addressing the substantive issues instead of picking minor points and talking about those. Please go through the posts again and try to demolish them in a substantive manner.
regards, Keith
Strawmen and blue angels!
Keith,
No Fair.
You claim you have a scientific approach to this question yet you refuse to disclose the amplifiers and equipment used, which seems very odd.
Hiding behind some obscure New Zealand liable law is not helping your cause (since you have nothing to gain financially).
Which might lead us to believe that.
a) You might be afraid that we might not be able to verify your results.
b) The equipment you used cannot resolve the differences.
c) You like the controversy.
Granted, somtimes the differences are small, but they are there none the less.
There is a lot of merit to what you say about the industry in general and there is more snake oil out there than scientific fact.
So in fairness full disclosure is in order.
Boy this has been a long night (day in your case) and most of this thread has degenarated into a bunch of techno babble.
Everything said and done, I defend your right to your opinion and maybe we may be able to change it one day and you will see the light. Heh! Heh!
Warmest Regards,
Jam
P.S. Anyone up for the longest thread record?
[Edited by jam on 07-07-2001 at 03:58 PM]
Keith,
No Fair.
You claim you have a scientific approach to this question yet you refuse to disclose the amplifiers and equipment used, which seems very odd.
Hiding behind some obscure New Zealand liable law is not helping your cause (since you have nothing to gain financially).
Which might lead us to believe that.
a) You might be afraid that we might not be able to verify your results.
b) The equipment you used cannot resolve the differences.
c) You like the controversy.
Granted, somtimes the differences are small, but they are there none the less.
There is a lot of merit to what you say about the industry in general and there is more snake oil out there than scientific fact.
So in fairness full disclosure is in order.
Boy this has been a long night (day in your case) and most of this thread has degenarated into a bunch of techno babble.
Everything said and done, I defend your right to your opinion and maybe we may be able to change it one day and you will see the light. Heh! Heh!
Warmest Regards,
Jam
P.S. Anyone up for the longest thread record?
[Edited by jam on 07-07-2001 at 03:58 PM]
Agreed, there is way too much nonsense in this industry, and I am keen to see this sort of thing reduced. For this reason I applaud a critical approach to many manufacturers’ claims.
Keith I’m sorry, but the specs you provided ARE easily achievable, and one would NOT approach the problem by saying that it needed to do so within a certain percentage of clipping, since by definition this is impossible, but by requiring a certain power output. That the amplifier may have an extra margin of headroom is immaterial (and/or good design).
My analogy of the car seems appropriate, as far from supporting your argument Keith, you have totally destroyed you own. Firstly, how does one “measure” the difference between cars by appearance? Given that a writer could not take a photograph, just as they cannot take a snapshot of what they hear in an amplifier test, how then Keith can they measure that?
As for expectation, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. You expect a BMW to be better (well ok, so do I) because we are both familiar, through experience, with the models. But how does that relate to somebody listening to another amplifier (particularly in the same price range)? Many times I have wished for something to be better, yet when I compared the units quite the opposite was true. Indeed I related the story of my embarrassing cable experiment where my expectation of the results was quite the opposite. Returning to my car example, what if you needed to convey your message to somebody who’d never heard of BMW or [insert cheap Asian car here], how do you do that? Recall the performance specs are identical and they both get you from A to B in the same time. A quality car is about far more than the performance figures, however because you can’t measure the difference does it mean the BMW isn’t a better car?
You suggested that I can hear the difference between amplifiers (yes sometimes) and (implied) you cannot. However I am not alone in my experience. I’m afraid Keith I’m drawing much the same conclusions as Jam and can only suggest you find a sympathetic dealer and spend some time listening to some REALLY high end gear. Hopefully you won’t be as pig headed as I was in trying to prove that cables don’t make any difference and will approach the task with an open mind. Don’t consider WHAT you’re listening to, it’s specs, or it’s price, just listen. I feel confident that if the system is up to the task you will clearly hear a difference.
Cheers
Pete.
PS If you still don’t want to believe your own ears then go to the Stereophile site and do a search on a recent blind testing experiment they did at a hi-fi show.
Keith I’m sorry, but the specs you provided ARE easily achievable, and one would NOT approach the problem by saying that it needed to do so within a certain percentage of clipping, since by definition this is impossible, but by requiring a certain power output. That the amplifier may have an extra margin of headroom is immaterial (and/or good design).
My analogy of the car seems appropriate, as far from supporting your argument Keith, you have totally destroyed you own. Firstly, how does one “measure” the difference between cars by appearance? Given that a writer could not take a photograph, just as they cannot take a snapshot of what they hear in an amplifier test, how then Keith can they measure that?
As for expectation, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. You expect a BMW to be better (well ok, so do I) because we are both familiar, through experience, with the models. But how does that relate to somebody listening to another amplifier (particularly in the same price range)? Many times I have wished for something to be better, yet when I compared the units quite the opposite was true. Indeed I related the story of my embarrassing cable experiment where my expectation of the results was quite the opposite. Returning to my car example, what if you needed to convey your message to somebody who’d never heard of BMW or [insert cheap Asian car here], how do you do that? Recall the performance specs are identical and they both get you from A to B in the same time. A quality car is about far more than the performance figures, however because you can’t measure the difference does it mean the BMW isn’t a better car?
You suggested that I can hear the difference between amplifiers (yes sometimes) and (implied) you cannot. However I am not alone in my experience. I’m afraid Keith I’m drawing much the same conclusions as Jam and can only suggest you find a sympathetic dealer and spend some time listening to some REALLY high end gear. Hopefully you won’t be as pig headed as I was in trying to prove that cables don’t make any difference and will approach the task with an open mind. Don’t consider WHAT you’re listening to, it’s specs, or it’s price, just listen. I feel confident that if the system is up to the task you will clearly hear a difference.
Cheers
Pete.
PS If you still don’t want to believe your own ears then go to the Stereophile site and do a search on a recent blind testing experiment they did at a hi-fi show.
Misinterpretation
>Ah, so you want your stereo system to add something to the >waveforms that are going through it. You want it to add >emotion. I'd dearly love to know a mechanism by which
>electronics can do that!
That is not what I said in my original post.
I want a HiFi system to accurately portray the emotion present in the music, if present, not to add or take away from it.
If it isn't present then by definition it's not worth listening to and either the musicians were poor, or the emotional content was not captured for some reason.
>Surely, the emotional content has been picked up in the >original performance and is in the ways the music is >phrased, the way the notes are sounded and so on. Isn't >this in the original?
It should be!
>Why do you want to ADD it?
I don't [although if a mechanism did exist for turning poor musicians into captivating ones it would have some merit
].
There are only two types of music in my book - that which is worth listening to and that which isn't. I would hope that all artists of any genre would have some merit and ability to allow them to record (actually there are some artists who in my opinion are not capable of expressign emotion in their playing, even though they are technically excellent - I choose not to listen to this type of material, it bores me) so I expect, indeed insist that my system is capable of portraying it when present. On many systems music that I know to be capable of stirring massive emotion leaves me cold. It may well measure 'perfectly'?
>If a performance sounds clinical, isn't that the way the >recording engineer/artist wanted it?
I'm actually ambivalent on this one, if music can be made genuinely more involving by electronics (and I don't believe it can) then there is merit in this. See next comment below for reason....
>Or are you in a position to know better how the music >should sound?
I know that all music should engage, captivate and stir emotion.
Good Hi-Fi is capable of making the hairs on people's necks stand up. I've seen friends with tears in their eyes whilst mourning the loss of great musicians played on truly musical equipment. It's a rare experience, but that's why I have a Hi-Fi. Without these moments it's all a total and utter waste of time.
Remember it's the content that's important - I'd rather talk to Jimi Hendrix over the telephone than his cleaner face to face. One may be accurate, live and accurateley reproduced, but the content isn't there.
Final question Keith, why do you listen to music (you do listen to music)?
[Edited by ALW on 07-07-2001 at 02:56 PM]
>Ah, so you want your stereo system to add something to the >waveforms that are going through it. You want it to add >emotion. I'd dearly love to know a mechanism by which
>electronics can do that!
That is not what I said in my original post.
I want a HiFi system to accurately portray the emotion present in the music, if present, not to add or take away from it.
If it isn't present then by definition it's not worth listening to and either the musicians were poor, or the emotional content was not captured for some reason.
>Surely, the emotional content has been picked up in the >original performance and is in the ways the music is >phrased, the way the notes are sounded and so on. Isn't >this in the original?
It should be!
>Why do you want to ADD it?
I don't [although if a mechanism did exist for turning poor musicians into captivating ones it would have some merit
]. There are only two types of music in my book - that which is worth listening to and that which isn't. I would hope that all artists of any genre would have some merit and ability to allow them to record (actually there are some artists who in my opinion are not capable of expressign emotion in their playing, even though they are technically excellent - I choose not to listen to this type of material, it bores me) so I expect, indeed insist that my system is capable of portraying it when present. On many systems music that I know to be capable of stirring massive emotion leaves me cold. It may well measure 'perfectly'?
>If a performance sounds clinical, isn't that the way the >recording engineer/artist wanted it?
I'm actually ambivalent on this one, if music can be made genuinely more involving by electronics (and I don't believe it can) then there is merit in this. See next comment below for reason....
>Or are you in a position to know better how the music >should sound?
I know that all music should engage, captivate and stir emotion.
Good Hi-Fi is capable of making the hairs on people's necks stand up. I've seen friends with tears in their eyes whilst mourning the loss of great musicians played on truly musical equipment. It's a rare experience, but that's why I have a Hi-Fi. Without these moments it's all a total and utter waste of time.
Remember it's the content that's important - I'd rather talk to Jimi Hendrix over the telephone than his cleaner face to face. One may be accurate, live and accurateley reproduced, but the content isn't there.
Final question Keith, why do you listen to music (you do listen to music)?
[Edited by ALW on 07-07-2001 at 02:56 PM]
Re: Strawmen and blue angels!
Originally posted by jam
Keith,
> No Fair.
> You claim you have a scientific approach to this question
> yet you refuse to disclose the amplifiers and equipment
> used, which seems very odd.
> Hiding behind some obscure New Zealand liable law is not
> helping your cause (since you have nothing to gain
> financially).
No fair! The thread actually started out as a request for someone about the merits of class A, AB and B. There was no mention of specific equipment then. At the point I came in, the thread was moving inexorably towards the subjectivist camp (generally) so as the objectivist that I am, I tossed in a few words (er.... lots of few words). I had no intention of getting specific simply because the thread was general and more about method than specific equipment. As I recall, you brought in the issue of specific equipment. I'm still not going down that line anyway as the thread is still about method.
> Which might lead us to believe that.
> a) You might be afraid that we might not be able to verify
> your results.
Puzzlement! If you can't verify the results I get, that's fine. I may not like it (I'm human after all) but if your results are achieved in a demonstrably scientific manner, then I have to accept them.
> b) The equipment you used cannot resolve the differences.
I've had various equipment that I can detect differences between and equipment I can't. In all cases where there have been differences, those differences are measurable in some manner. An THD is only one part of the picture. I still use the old SMPTE intermod distortion tests!
> c) You like the controversy.
Personally I like controversy. It can often be used to resolve issues or to point out fallacies. For the world of audio, this controversy has been going on far too long. Something like 25 years or so. To me, it's been very damaging to audio as one of the results is the lack of advancement in the craft for a long time. As I said in another post, I left audio in disgust at the shenanigans of the subjective crowd with the cable controversy 7 or 8 years ago. I came back last year and started picking up on the state of the art. It wasn't difficult because little had changed AFAIK. Convince me otherwise. As I also said, history is a wonderful thing....
> Granted, somtimes the differences are small, but they are
> there none the less.
Argument by assertion. Prove it scientifically. In many cases you will be able to identify differences. In the cases where you do, I'll bet that those differences are explainable by one or other of the available measurements. In many cases where you say there are differences, if you are able to do the tests ABX or double blind, there will be no differences. It's the mind at play - and it does.
> There is a lot of merit to what you say about the industry
> in general and there is more snake oil out there than
> scientific fact. So in fairness full disclosure is in
> order.
Sorry. As I said above, the thread is about method, there it'll stay. Bring specifics in only diverts the points.
> Boy this has been a long night (day in your case) and most
> of this thread has degenarated into a bunch of techno
> babble.
That "techno babble" should point you in directions that audio should be going. Subjectivism? Bah - humbug. Probably somewhere between the two, a mix of subjectivism and objectivism would be good. For example. Someone listens to a piece of equipment and says "X has a deep soundstage". Now, instead of all the subjectivists going on about how "X has a deep soundstage" we try to verify it (repeatability). But we do it ABX or double blind. See the BMW/Korean car post supra. If it's repeatable, we go looking for a mechanism and, as often as not, we'll find it.
> Everything said and done, I defend your right to your
> opinion and maybe we may be able to change it one day and
> you will see the light. Heh!
You'll need to do it in a scientifically valid manner. Heh!
> Warmest Regards,
> Jam
kind regards, Keith
P.S. Anyone up for the longest thread record?
Originally posted by jam
Keith,
> No Fair.
> You claim you have a scientific approach to this question
> yet you refuse to disclose the amplifiers and equipment
> used, which seems very odd.
> Hiding behind some obscure New Zealand liable law is not
> helping your cause (since you have nothing to gain
> financially).
No fair!
The thread actually started out as a request for someone about the merits of class A, AB and B. There was no mention of specific equipment then. At the point I came in, the thread was moving inexorably towards the subjectivist camp (generally) so as the objectivist that I am, I tossed in a few words (er.... lots of few words). I had no intention of getting specific simply because the thread was general and more about method than specific equipment. As I recall, you brought in the issue of specific equipment. I'm still not going down that line anyway as the thread is still about method. > Which might lead us to believe that.
> a) You might be afraid that we might not be able to verify
> your results.
Puzzlement! If you can't verify the results I get, that's fine. I may not like it (I'm human after all) but if your results are achieved in a demonstrably scientific manner, then I have to accept them.
> b) The equipment you used cannot resolve the differences.
I've had various equipment that I can detect differences between and equipment I can't. In all cases where there have been differences, those differences are measurable in some manner. An THD is only one part of the picture. I still use the old SMPTE intermod distortion tests!
> c) You like the controversy.
Personally I like controversy. It can often be used to resolve issues or to point out fallacies. For the world of audio, this controversy has been going on far too long. Something like 25 years or so. To me, it's been very damaging to audio as one of the results is the lack of advancement in the craft for a long time. As I said in another post, I left audio in disgust at the shenanigans of the subjective crowd with the cable controversy 7 or 8 years ago. I came back last year and started picking up on the state of the art. It wasn't difficult because little had changed AFAIK. Convince me otherwise. As I also said, history is a wonderful thing....
> Granted, somtimes the differences are small, but they are
> there none the less.
Argument by assertion. Prove it scientifically. In many cases you will be able to identify differences. In the cases where you do, I'll bet that those differences are explainable by one or other of the available measurements. In many cases where you say there are differences, if you are able to do the tests ABX or double blind, there will be no differences. It's the mind at play - and it does.
> There is a lot of merit to what you say about the industry
> in general and there is more snake oil out there than
> scientific fact. So in fairness full disclosure is in
> order.
Sorry. As I said above, the thread is about method, there it'll stay. Bring specifics in only diverts the points.
> Boy this has been a long night (day in your case) and most
> of this thread has degenarated into a bunch of techno
> babble.
That "techno babble" should point you in directions that audio should be going. Subjectivism? Bah - humbug. Probably somewhere between the two, a mix of subjectivism and objectivism would be good. For example. Someone listens to a piece of equipment and says "X has a deep soundstage". Now, instead of all the subjectivists going on about how "X has a deep soundstage" we try to verify it (repeatability). But we do it ABX or double blind. See the BMW/Korean car post supra. If it's repeatable, we go looking for a mechanism and, as often as not, we'll find it.
> Everything said and done, I defend your right to your
> opinion and maybe we may be able to change it one day and
> you will see the light. Heh!
You'll need to do it in a scientifically valid manner. Heh!
> Warmest Regards,
> Jam
kind regards, Keith
P.S. Anyone up for the longest thread record?
Re: Misinterpretation
Gidday.
> Final question Keith, why do you listen to music (you do
> listen to music)?
Same as you I think. Because I enjoy it. As I said in a post replying to Grey, I much prefer live music, particularly Jazz and classical. A stereo system provides only a simulacrum of that. To that end, I want what the recording engineer/artist intended the music to sound like. This requires accuracy in the reproduction chain. There should be no "Amplifier sound", no "Cable sound". Just music as it was intended. If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a personal opinion and only a personal opinion. You see, the controversy comes down really to a few words. They are the difference between:
1. This is what the amplifier sounds like, versus
2. This is my opinion of this amplifier.
If the subjectivists would use the second, we'd all be better off. If they could justify their results we'd be even better off and the craft could advance....
kind regards, Keith
regards, Keith
Gidday.
> Final question Keith, why do you listen to music (you do
> listen to music)?
Same as you I think. Because I enjoy it. As I said in a post replying to Grey, I much prefer live music, particularly Jazz and classical. A stereo system provides only a simulacrum of that. To that end, I want what the recording engineer/artist intended the music to sound like. This requires accuracy in the reproduction chain. There should be no "Amplifier sound", no "Cable sound". Just music as it was intended. If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a personal opinion and only a personal opinion. You see, the controversy comes down really to a few words. They are the difference between:
1. This is what the amplifier sounds like, versus
2. This is my opinion of this amplifier.
If the subjectivists would use the second, we'd all be better off. If they could justify their results we'd be even better off and the craft could advance....
kind regards, Keith
regards, Keith
Sour Grapes!
Keith,
You have used every way possible to avoid answering a simple question.
What are you afraid of? Backed yourself into a corner?
You probably have more excuses to pull out of your hat.
Methinks you have something to hide and the purpose of answering the thread is to rant and rave about a bad experience you have had with the industry rather than promote the hobby and help others in their quest for better sound.
Where is your science now? Hiding behind a distortion analyzer?
This is nothing but an example of sour grapes, and I don't it think has a place here.
As you have said that you are using compentently designed amplifiers, I am curious as my amplifiers might not be and I might need to switch to the possibly superior designs that you are using, or do you want to gather up your toys and go home?
Regards,
Jam
[Edited by jam on 07-07-2001 at 07:21 PM]
Keith,
You have used every way possible to avoid answering a simple question.
What are you afraid of? Backed yourself into a corner?
You probably have more excuses to pull out of your hat.
Methinks you have something to hide and the purpose of answering the thread is to rant and rave about a bad experience you have had with the industry rather than promote the hobby and help others in their quest for better sound.
Where is your science now? Hiding behind a distortion analyzer?
This is nothing but an example of sour grapes, and I don't it think has a place here.
As you have said that you are using compentently designed amplifiers, I am curious as my amplifiers might not be and I might need to switch to the possibly superior designs that you are using, or do you want to gather up your toys and go home?
Regards,
Jam
[Edited by jam on 07-07-2001 at 07:21 PM]
Sorry ..... Longwinded post, even by this Thread's standard
Hi All,
I think there is little to gain in knowing "exactly what" equipment anyone from this discussion uses per se. Next we will have a post of ..... "oh, mine is better than yours, so you clearly don't know what your talking about!" - with the accompanying raspberry. Please let us try to stay above this!
Keith appeared (from where I am sitting) to be principally attacking the highly subjective "review/assessment" process which prevails in the HiFi world. (a little piece inside of me kinda has sympathy for this)
The "subjectivists" replied in strong defence ..... "but you can't have objectivity, because not all aspects of amplifier performance are understood or measurable - we hear a difference, therefore it IS".
This, to an extent, I believe is true. I suspect there are parameters of performance which we currently fail to measure accurately. I believe there are audible differences between roughly comparable spec'ed amplifiers (using the short list of W-RMS, THD, FreqR, Damping, etc). But then, the differences between others are next to non-existent, despite wide industry acclaim and astronomical price difference.
It is more the latter which I believe frustrates the "objectivists". Keith, for the purpose of argument, took a polarized stance ...... and it has been a little fun to watch the response.
The industry as a whole resists any movement towards "blinded" or impartial comparison, which immediately removes any real credibility from an objective stance.
I used the analogy of the wine industry, which is both good and bad. With wine there is no "gold standard", so at the end of the day the definition of "good wine" is that which the "drinker enjoys".
Music is a little/lot different. The proported "gold standard" of the live performance is actually an unobtainable myth - since I have yet to learn of a CD which actually contains this! What we listen to is the sound engineers/producers interpretation of what they believe will come closest to giving the listener some appreciation of the performance ........ exactly what should "this" sound like?
Well, given they mix the master in response to what they hear through their own ears/equipment (which has it's own coloration/distortion), I guess no-one else will ever know!
So, at the end of the day we are back to the highly subjective, "if you like it, then it's good for you".
From the user/buyers corner, this is fine. The industry, however, should be at least be attempting to make objective assessments. This would tend to keep some manufacturers a little more honest and may actually get people to focus more on the things which make a "real" difference .......
mark
PS: Just 'cause Oz is near NZ doesn't mean we're in the same camp ..... just mention the rugby ;-)
Hi All,
I think there is little to gain in knowing "exactly what" equipment anyone from this discussion uses per se. Next we will have a post of ..... "oh, mine is better than yours, so you clearly don't know what your talking about!" - with the accompanying raspberry. Please let us try to stay above this!
Keith appeared (from where I am sitting) to be principally attacking the highly subjective "review/assessment" process which prevails in the HiFi world. (a little piece inside of me kinda has sympathy for this)
The "subjectivists" replied in strong defence ..... "but you can't have objectivity, because not all aspects of amplifier performance are understood or measurable - we hear a difference, therefore it IS".
This, to an extent, I believe is true. I suspect there are parameters of performance which we currently fail to measure accurately. I believe there are audible differences between roughly comparable spec'ed amplifiers (using the short list of W-RMS, THD, FreqR, Damping, etc). But then, the differences between others are next to non-existent, despite wide industry acclaim and astronomical price difference.
It is more the latter which I believe frustrates the "objectivists". Keith, for the purpose of argument, took a polarized stance ...... and it has been a little fun to watch the response.
The industry as a whole resists any movement towards "blinded" or impartial comparison, which immediately removes any real credibility from an objective stance.
I used the analogy of the wine industry, which is both good and bad. With wine there is no "gold standard", so at the end of the day the definition of "good wine" is that which the "drinker enjoys".
Music is a little/lot different. The proported "gold standard" of the live performance is actually an unobtainable myth - since I have yet to learn of a CD which actually contains this! What we listen to is the sound engineers/producers interpretation of what they believe will come closest to giving the listener some appreciation of the performance ........ exactly what should "this" sound like?
Well, given they mix the master in response to what they hear through their own ears/equipment (which has it's own coloration/distortion), I guess no-one else will ever know!
So, at the end of the day we are back to the highly subjective, "if you like it, then it's good for you".
From the user/buyers corner, this is fine. The industry, however, should be at least be attempting to make objective assessments. This would tend to keep some manufacturers a little more honest and may actually get people to focus more on the things which make a "real" difference .......
mark
PS: Just 'cause Oz is near NZ doesn't mean we're in the same camp ..... just mention the rugby ;-)
Man, holy wars....
Why do I see so many of them? Look at computers and the OS zealots. In my industry, the broadcast engineers argue over all of this...when the reality is that we are playing out over mostly lousy boomboxes and shitty car radios (I work for public radio, so for some reason we care).
Look, if we can all agree the perfect amp is the wire with gain, and even then the length of wire would actually alter the signal some, then the amp is gonna sound like <b>something</b>. What is a different story. To expand on it, each circut will be somewhat different. So they too will be different. Even identical circuts will vary based on its parts - no matter how hard you try, nothing will match perfectly.
So there will be differences. Can they be measured? A priori, I would say yes (leaving the uncertainty principle aside, which *does* apply here - The act of measurement does effect the measure).
Can they be measured today? No. Even a cursury study of perceptual audio studies show that there is much missing in our knowledge of <i>how</i> we really hear. So we must use both subjective and objective measures since neither is totally valid on its own. ABX makes sense. But even then, you are judging it based on your subjective minds eye. We can add bits to both to improve our art.
Why do I see so many of them? Look at computers and the OS zealots. In my industry, the broadcast engineers argue over all of this...when the reality is that we are playing out over mostly lousy boomboxes and shitty car radios (I work for public radio, so for some reason we care).
Look, if we can all agree the perfect amp is the wire with gain, and even then the length of wire would actually alter the signal some, then the amp is gonna sound like <b>something</b>. What is a different story. To expand on it, each circut will be somewhat different. So they too will be different. Even identical circuts will vary based on its parts - no matter how hard you try, nothing will match perfectly.
So there will be differences. Can they be measured? A priori, I would say yes (leaving the uncertainty principle aside, which *does* apply here - The act of measurement does effect the measure).
Can they be measured today? No. Even a cursury study of perceptual audio studies show that there is much missing in our knowledge of <i>how</i> we really hear. So we must use both subjective and objective measures since neither is totally valid on its own. ABX makes sense. But even then, you are judging it based on your subjective minds eye. We can add bits to both to improve our art.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.