Re: Sour Grapes!
> You have used every way possible to avoid answering a > simple question.
Oh my dear sir. I have NO intention of listing my equipment or the equipment that I've heard music played through over the years. I made the mistake of giving out my speaker system. I shouldn't have.
> What are you afraid of? Backed yourself into a corner?
No, not really. Just provoking controversy to see if the subjectivists budge. Taking one stance which allows me to move towards my actual stsnce. Haven't you heard of taking and extreme position. Pete picked it.
> You probably have more excuses to pull out of your hat.
For what? Do you feel so under threat that you need to talk like this?
> 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.
This is semi abuse without any justification. Methinks you doth protest too much.
> Where is your science now? Hiding behind a distortion
> analyzer?
Where is always was.
> This is nothing but an example of sour grapes, and I don't
> it think has a place here.
Where is the sour grapes? I don't see any.
> 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?
Oh dear. Jam, go through the postings. See if there's anywhere in there I said that I was using what I regard as competently built amplifiers. I listed my criteria for competently built amplifiers only. Are your cherished beliefs under threat and you resort to this type of post?
Jam, if you're happy with your amplifiers then that's all there is to it. As to switching, send me your email and I'll tell you what I use. Any decision on the use of such is up to you.
> Regards,
> Jam
And warmest listenings to you too.
Keith
> You have used every way possible to avoid answering a > simple question.
Oh my dear sir. I have NO intention of listing my equipment or the equipment that I've heard music played through over the years. I made the mistake of giving out my speaker system. I shouldn't have.
> What are you afraid of? Backed yourself into a corner?
No, not really. Just provoking controversy to see if the subjectivists budge. Taking one stance which allows me to move towards my actual stsnce. Haven't you heard of taking and extreme position. Pete picked it.
> You probably have more excuses to pull out of your hat.
For what? Do you feel so under threat that you need to talk like this?
> 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.
This is semi abuse without any justification. Methinks you doth protest too much.
> Where is your science now? Hiding behind a distortion
> analyzer?
Where is always was.
> This is nothing but an example of sour grapes, and I don't
> it think has a place here.
Where is the sour grapes? I don't see any.
> 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?
Oh dear. Jam, go through the postings. See if there's anywhere in there I said that I was using what I regard as competently built amplifiers. I listed my criteria for competently built amplifiers only. Are your cherished beliefs under threat and you resort to this type of post?
Jam, if you're happy with your amplifiers then that's all there is to it. As to switching, send me your email and I'll tell you what I use. Any decision on the use of such is up to you.
> Regards,
> Jam
And warmest listenings to you too.
Keith
Re: Sorry ..... Longwinded post, even by this Thread's standard
Ah the rugby. The Aussies beat the Poms last night. They played like a team. Great.
And the Warriors beat the Eels. Even better.
/there be deletions
>Hi All,
> I think there is little to gain in knowing "exactly what" > equipment anyone from this discussion uses per se.
Too true. Good statement. Couldn't put it better meself.
> 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)
Yep. My opinion is that it is highly damaging and can, in some case result in perfectly good equipment vanishing without trace on the world market and perfectly execrable kit being lauded. Neither forwards the craft. In fact it goeth backward.
> 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".
You can't have objectivity simply because there are no baselines... defined or allowed by the subjectivists. If there were (how do you define a standard amplifier?), ah?
> This, to an extent, I believe is true. I suspect there
> are parameters of performance which we currently fail to
> measure accurately.
Perhaps you'd like to posit some mechanisms by which these effects could be explained. Me, I think all ACTUALLY audible effects can be explained. But, that's just me. In fact I'd love to be proven wrong. Just once. I also think that most of what peple hear, they think they hear. It's all in the mind. Except for Grey, I don't think anyone has admitted that their ears/brain are fallible. When they do, we might be able to be constructive instead of going round in circles.
> 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.
So do I. But I believe they are explainable by the current craft.
> 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.
Heh! Some fun from this angle, not so much fun from another angle.
> The industry as a whole resists any movement towards
> "blinded" or impartial comparison, which immediately
> removes any real credibility from an objective stance.
Don't you mean ... removes and real credibility from a SUBJECTIVE stance?
> 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!
I agree with you, but it's something to strive for I think.
> So, at the end of the day we are back to the highly
> subjective, "if you like it, then it's good for you".
Yep. A stereo system is a personal and an emotional choice. If you like X and I like Y, that's fine. Opinions are great. Dogma isn't. (now watch someone accuse me of dogmatism... if you want to, read the posts first... I mean properly... in al their pristine glory. I mean read and inwardly digest them) Ah, I feel lots better....!
> 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 .......
I went into a hifi dealers the other day. Asked about a set of loudspeakers that were quite expensive. Nice looking too. He said that frequency response graphs and impedance curves were meaningless. Saw another set of speakers. Nice looking. Had frequency response curves in an anechoic chamber and impedance curves. So I asked, why the second manufacturer had included them while the first didn't. Interesting range of facial expressions.
mark
PS: Just 'cause Oz is near NZ doesn't mean we're in the same camp ..... just mention the rugby ;-) See start of post...
Hey I'm in Sydney in a couple weeks. Working in Chatswood. You in Sydney?
Ah the rugby. The Aussies beat the Poms last night. They played like a team. Great.
And the Warriors beat the Eels. Even better.
/there be deletions
>Hi All,
> I think there is little to gain in knowing "exactly what" > equipment anyone from this discussion uses per se.
Too true. Good statement. Couldn't put it better meself.
> 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)
Yep. My opinion is that it is highly damaging and can, in some case result in perfectly good equipment vanishing without trace on the world market and perfectly execrable kit being lauded. Neither forwards the craft. In fact it goeth backward.
> 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".
You can't have objectivity simply because there are no baselines... defined or allowed by the subjectivists. If there were (how do you define a standard amplifier?), ah?
> This, to an extent, I believe is true. I suspect there
> are parameters of performance which we currently fail to
> measure accurately.
Perhaps you'd like to posit some mechanisms by which these effects could be explained. Me, I think all ACTUALLY audible effects can be explained. But, that's just me. In fact I'd love to be proven wrong. Just once. I also think that most of what peple hear, they think they hear. It's all in the mind. Except for Grey, I don't think anyone has admitted that their ears/brain are fallible. When they do, we might be able to be constructive instead of going round in circles.
> 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.
So do I. But I believe they are explainable by the current craft.
> 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.
Heh! Some fun from this angle, not so much fun from another angle.
> The industry as a whole resists any movement towards
> "blinded" or impartial comparison, which immediately
> removes any real credibility from an objective stance.
Don't you mean ... removes and real credibility from a SUBJECTIVE stance?
> 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!
I agree with you, but it's something to strive for I think.
> So, at the end of the day we are back to the highly
> subjective, "if you like it, then it's good for you".
Yep. A stereo system is a personal and an emotional choice. If you like X and I like Y, that's fine. Opinions are great. Dogma isn't. (now watch someone accuse me of dogmatism... if you want to, read the posts first... I mean properly... in al their pristine glory. I mean read and inwardly digest them) Ah, I feel lots better....!
> 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 .......
I went into a hifi dealers the other day. Asked about a set of loudspeakers that were quite expensive. Nice looking too. He said that frequency response graphs and impedance curves were meaningless. Saw another set of speakers. Nice looking. Had frequency response curves in an anechoic chamber and impedance curves. So I asked, why the second manufacturer had included them while the first didn't. Interesting range of facial expressions.
mark
PS: Just 'cause Oz is near NZ doesn't mean we're in the same camp ..... just mention the rugby ;-) See start of post...
Hey I'm in Sydney in a couple weeks. Working in Chatswood. You in Sydney?
Keith,
Well I never said the analyais of an amplifier should be totally subjective. Objective analysis plays an important part in the design of an amplifier.
If you have ever designed an amplifier there are changes you could make to the design that would radically change the sound of the amplifier but you would not be able to measure the change with any known instrumentation.
All I'm saying is that you can't judge an amplifier by specs alone and similar specifications do not mean that two amps are going to sound the same.
Sorry if seemed a bit harsh but I had to cut to the chase, by polarizing the situation even more, so what is your
stance on the subject anyway?
Regards,
Jam
P.S. The reason I wanted to know what equipment you had, was not to discredit your equipment or make comparisons but to better understand the reasons for your opinion.
[Edited by jam on 07-08-2001 at 12:13 AM]
Well I never said the analyais of an amplifier should be totally subjective. Objective analysis plays an important part in the design of an amplifier.
If you have ever designed an amplifier there are changes you could make to the design that would radically change the sound of the amplifier but you would not be able to measure the change with any known instrumentation.
All I'm saying is that you can't judge an amplifier by specs alone and similar specifications do not mean that two amps are going to sound the same.
Sorry if seemed a bit harsh but I had to cut to the chase, by polarizing the situation even more, so what is your
stance on the subject anyway?
Regards,
Jam
P.S. The reason I wanted to know what equipment you had, was not to discredit your equipment or make comparisons but to better understand the reasons for your opinion.
[Edited by jam on 07-08-2001 at 12:13 AM]
Yes I’m with Mark here. Personally I’m from Keith’s camp (it’s the way originally trained, and my present occupation is probably a dead give away that this is my personality), i.e. wanting to have an objective, impartial assessment of each component in a standard where direct comparisons can be made in order to determine which of the components is better. However I, as have many others here, have found from experience, this is simply not possible using the tools presently at our disposal; if only it were.
I mentioned an analogy comparing different model cars, where I suggested that simply because you may be unable to objectively measure the difference between two makes of cars doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. Some have also mentioned wine, and that is also an excellent example. I’m not a chemist so if you know better please let me know, however would suggest that different wines essentially have the same chemical composition; it’s not possible, or at least practical, to rank wines chemically. We don’t go to a wine store and pore over what chemicals are in the bottle. Yet who is going to suggest all wine tastes the same? Perhaps to one who has never tasted wine before, different wines may appear the same, yet those with experience can easily determine the difference, often to an extraordinary degree. Here we see that there is no objective assessment of which wine is “better” or even different. Instead when selecting wine we generally base our decision based on personal experience or possibly a subjective assessment from others.
Keith I partly agree with you in saying there has been little progress in some areas of audio, the resurgence of quite old valve designs is but one example, nevertheless that is not to say there has been none. I feel we are (slowly) working towards understanding why things sound the way they do, although we clearly have a long way to go. I can only restate my suggestion that the comparative tools you choose are far too crude for an accurate assessment of difference. I have long felt that “cable directionality” was a nonsense, as was the suggestion that cables between transport and DAC could affect the sound. “Baaaahhhhaaaa”, said I, “It’s digital so impossible [blah blah blah with technical reasons]”. Yet many insisted they could hear a difference. I would now direct you to http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?368 (if that link doesn’t work please search CD transport jitter). The tools are now available to prove that this phenomena is real, and is now measurable. Once again I can only restate that simply because we cannot observe and measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I totally agree Keith, psycho-acoustic “trickery” is very powerful indeed, nevertheless it is often intermingled with a sprinkling of truth. Unfortunately at this time only trial and error, and a sceptical mind will lead closer to the unobtainable perfection.
Cheers,
Pete
I mentioned an analogy comparing different model cars, where I suggested that simply because you may be unable to objectively measure the difference between two makes of cars doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. Some have also mentioned wine, and that is also an excellent example. I’m not a chemist so if you know better please let me know, however would suggest that different wines essentially have the same chemical composition; it’s not possible, or at least practical, to rank wines chemically. We don’t go to a wine store and pore over what chemicals are in the bottle. Yet who is going to suggest all wine tastes the same? Perhaps to one who has never tasted wine before, different wines may appear the same, yet those with experience can easily determine the difference, often to an extraordinary degree. Here we see that there is no objective assessment of which wine is “better” or even different. Instead when selecting wine we generally base our decision based on personal experience or possibly a subjective assessment from others.
Keith I partly agree with you in saying there has been little progress in some areas of audio, the resurgence of quite old valve designs is but one example, nevertheless that is not to say there has been none. I feel we are (slowly) working towards understanding why things sound the way they do, although we clearly have a long way to go. I can only restate my suggestion that the comparative tools you choose are far too crude for an accurate assessment of difference. I have long felt that “cable directionality” was a nonsense, as was the suggestion that cables between transport and DAC could affect the sound. “Baaaahhhhaaaa”, said I, “It’s digital so impossible [blah blah blah with technical reasons]”. Yet many insisted they could hear a difference. I would now direct you to http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?368 (if that link doesn’t work please search CD transport jitter). The tools are now available to prove that this phenomena is real, and is now measurable. Once again I can only restate that simply because we cannot observe and measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I totally agree Keith, psycho-acoustic “trickery” is very powerful indeed, nevertheless it is often intermingled with a sprinkling of truth. Unfortunately at this time only trial and error, and a sceptical mind will lead closer to the unobtainable perfection.
Cheers,
Pete
Sorry, a PS
Keith, this is also a very interesting experiment that you may like to read about (if you haven’t already).
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113
Cheers,
Pete
Keith, this is also a very interesting experiment that you may like to read about (if you haven’t already).
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113
Cheers,
Pete
Hello, hello, hello
> Sorry if seemed a bit harsh but I had to cut to the chase,
> by polarizing the situation even more, so what is your
> stance on the subject anyway?
At this point, objective. I check the specs of the gear first. Then I''l ask if I can borrow it for a listen and find out the *real* specs. That usually finds what I want. I don't own sophisticated test gear, but can get access to it if needed
> Regards,
> Jam
> P.S. The reason I wanted to know what equipment you had,
> was not to discredit your equipment or make comparisons
> but to better understand the reasons for your opinion.
Ah, OK. But my background in telecommunications is far more important. When I first started, one of the things we were encouraged to do was to dig out the history of telecommunications. And, what did I find? Most of what audio people like to think of as new is in fact old. Some dates back to the 1800s, some to the 1930s. Really, there ain't much new under the sun.
P.S. I'm forming an organisation called the Latter Day Luddites. Want to join?
There I think I'm going to pull my part of the plug. It's been interesting, but is now starting to go round in circles.
Ah, well, c'est la vie or as the Arabs say masalaama.
regards, Keith
> Sorry if seemed a bit harsh but I had to cut to the chase,
> by polarizing the situation even more, so what is your
> stance on the subject anyway?
At this point, objective. I check the specs of the gear first. Then I''l ask if I can borrow it for a listen and find out the *real* specs. That usually finds what I want. I don't own sophisticated test gear, but can get access to it if needed
> Regards,
> Jam
> P.S. The reason I wanted to know what equipment you had,
> was not to discredit your equipment or make comparisons
> but to better understand the reasons for your opinion.
Ah, OK. But my background in telecommunications is far more important. When I first started, one of the things we were encouraged to do was to dig out the history of telecommunications. And, what did I find? Most of what audio people like to think of as new is in fact old. Some dates back to the 1800s, some to the 1930s. Really, there ain't much new under the sun.
P.S. I'm forming an organisation called the Latter Day Luddites. Want to join?
There I think I'm going to pull my part of the plug. It's been interesting, but is now starting to go round in circles.
Ah, well, c'est la vie or as the Arabs say masalaama.
regards, Keith
Keep taking the music
It's reassuring to hear that we listen to music for much the same reason, and I would agree with you about a preference for live music.
It raises another interesting point though, many amplified concerts (rock) I've been to could hardly be classed as the last word in quality (using the terms defined by you and others here), but with very, very few exceptions they are always more involving than listening to recordings. I wonder why?
>If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a >personal opinion and only a personal opinion.
Utimately I cannot argue with this, but in my experience music that is genuinely involving to me, is genuinely involving to others. As my HiFi has improved I've found my self listening to an ever wider range of music, finding merit where I'd believed it didn't exist previously. The same experience has occurred to many other friends and colleagues.
This leads me to the logical conclusion that the 'better' (read 'more involving') system has presented information that was previously not present, yet so many supposedly high quality, and often outrageously expensive equipment cannot present this information. It has clear treble, tight bass and a multitude of other 'HiFi' attributes yet it still leaves me cold.
For me, you see, I'd rather have involving with distortion, than boring without. That may be the fundamental difference between us.
Andy.
It's reassuring to hear that we listen to music for much the same reason, and I would agree with you about a preference for live music.
It raises another interesting point though, many amplified concerts (rock) I've been to could hardly be classed as the last word in quality (using the terms defined by you and others here), but with very, very few exceptions they are always more involving than listening to recordings. I wonder why?
>If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a >personal opinion and only a personal opinion.
Utimately I cannot argue with this, but in my experience music that is genuinely involving to me, is genuinely involving to others. As my HiFi has improved I've found my self listening to an ever wider range of music, finding merit where I'd believed it didn't exist previously. The same experience has occurred to many other friends and colleagues.
This leads me to the logical conclusion that the 'better' (read 'more involving') system has presented information that was previously not present, yet so many supposedly high quality, and often outrageously expensive equipment cannot present this information. It has clear treble, tight bass and a multitude of other 'HiFi' attributes yet it still leaves me cold.
For me, you see, I'd rather have involving with distortion, than boring without. That may be the fundamental difference between us.
Andy.
God this was good ;-)
Hi All,
Pete Fleming drew our attention to the article ( http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113 ), from which I quote:
"But when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions, then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences."
This is great ..... I haven't laughed so hard in ages !
The fantastic bit is the opening "you know ...."
The whole bloody point is you DO NOT KNOW .... you only think you do, based upon your preconceptions and biases. This circular justification is just marvellous ...... how can one possibly argue with such logic.
But he goes on:
"Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis. Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms (footnote 2). Convinced by these results of the validity in the Consumer Reports philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career! ......... Some amplifiers which cannot be distinguished reliably under formal blind conditions do not sound similar over lengthy listening in more familiar and relaxed circumstances."
Now, a fellow could just be tempted to suggest this is direct support for what I have been trying to say all along. If you "want", or "need", to hear something as "better" ..... behold, you do !!!!
Then, we get the follow-up trial to the "great challenge", where 130 listeners could not tell the difference between 3 amplifiers ..... (note that the organising body was the Audio Engineers Society ...... not some vested interest group)
This had to be "wrong", because 1 listener managed to get things correct !!!!!!
I fall off the chair laughing. Getting back-up, the phrase "probability distribution" eventually gets out, where we can be virtually guaranteed that in 130 listeners 1 (actually, a couple more than 1, namely 4) will get 5/5 simply by chance alone ....... makes them feel really good, and I'm pleased for them, but I'm afraid it displays nothing more than the writers preconceived bias and total ignorance of science.
OK ..... now we need to design our new and "better trial".
Another of my favorites emerges:
"Similarly, other tests have asked the listener 'Which is better, A or B?,' which again produces random results due to the fact that 'better' is a subjective parameter that will vary from person to person."
Now hang-on a minute ....... aren't we actually trying to quantify people's subjective opinions. Random results actually do tell us something ...... something REAL, the sample group in question cannot tell the difference between A & B.
We then get several pages describing the trial designed to determine if people can simply "ascertain different", using 2 amplifiers which bloody-well SHOULD be different. We use a $750 SS amp versus a $5000 tube design. Don't try to tell us which is better (that might be too confusing - or embarrassing), just see if you can spot "different".
I won't even start on the statistical analysis, I've been at work now for 14 hours and it's time to go home.
Some would say bad science, and poorly constructed trials are worse than no trials at all (and I'm one of them!). I work in the medical field and alas, I do have to confess, nearly 60% of articles published in "respectable" journals have some methodological flaw (usually the statistics bit).
BUT ...... I have to say, it is nice to see someone trying to apply science ....... even if they have deliberately constructed the trial to try to show what they want it to.
Research is full of this ..... ALAS :-(
thanks for the read,
mark
Hi All,
Pete Fleming drew our attention to the article ( http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113 ), from which I quote:
"But when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions, then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences."
This is great ..... I haven't laughed so hard in ages !
The fantastic bit is the opening "you know ...."
The whole bloody point is you DO NOT KNOW .... you only think you do, based upon your preconceptions and biases. This circular justification is just marvellous ...... how can one possibly argue with such logic.
But he goes on:
"Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis. Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms (footnote 2). Convinced by these results of the validity in the Consumer Reports philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career! ......... Some amplifiers which cannot be distinguished reliably under formal blind conditions do not sound similar over lengthy listening in more familiar and relaxed circumstances."
Now, a fellow could just be tempted to suggest this is direct support for what I have been trying to say all along. If you "want", or "need", to hear something as "better" ..... behold, you do !!!!
Then, we get the follow-up trial to the "great challenge", where 130 listeners could not tell the difference between 3 amplifiers ..... (note that the organising body was the Audio Engineers Society ...... not some vested interest group)
This had to be "wrong", because 1 listener managed to get things correct !!!!!!
I fall off the chair laughing. Getting back-up, the phrase "probability distribution" eventually gets out, where we can be virtually guaranteed that in 130 listeners 1 (actually, a couple more than 1, namely 4) will get 5/5 simply by chance alone ....... makes them feel really good, and I'm pleased for them, but I'm afraid it displays nothing more than the writers preconceived bias and total ignorance of science.
OK ..... now we need to design our new and "better trial".
Another of my favorites emerges:
"Similarly, other tests have asked the listener 'Which is better, A or B?,' which again produces random results due to the fact that 'better' is a subjective parameter that will vary from person to person."
Now hang-on a minute ....... aren't we actually trying to quantify people's subjective opinions. Random results actually do tell us something ...... something REAL, the sample group in question cannot tell the difference between A & B.
We then get several pages describing the trial designed to determine if people can simply "ascertain different", using 2 amplifiers which bloody-well SHOULD be different. We use a $750 SS amp versus a $5000 tube design. Don't try to tell us which is better (that might be too confusing - or embarrassing), just see if you can spot "different".
I won't even start on the statistical analysis, I've been at work now for 14 hours and it's time to go home.
Some would say bad science, and poorly constructed trials are worse than no trials at all (and I'm one of them!). I work in the medical field and alas, I do have to confess, nearly 60% of articles published in "respectable" journals have some methodological flaw (usually the statistics bit).
BUT ...... I have to say, it is nice to see someone trying to apply science ....... even if they have deliberately constructed the trial to try to show what they want it to.
Research is full of this ..... ALAS :-(
thanks for the read,
mark
What was the Original Question?
Forgot about poor old Lisandro, who wrote:
"Ok, here's my dilema. I'm about to build a stereo integrated preamp/amplifier to start forming my hi-fi rig. I have the preamp already designed, and i was looking for power amplifiers plans on the web to work on. Right now i'm between any of the "Zen" derivates by Nelson Pass and the "New improved 60-100W amp" by Rod Elliot (www.sound.au.com).
... Snip ...
This was OptiMOS revisted, wasn't it .... SORRY
Try to get access to the 2 "styles" of amps and listen to them. Really, at the end of the day, you will be listening to the amp, so you have to be comfortable with how it performs.
In Class A/B I would point you to the Leach amp. I used one of these for many years and the hardware/heat cost is not prohibitive.
See: http://users.ece.gatech.edu:80/~mleach/lowtim/
Listen to a Class A amp and decide for yourself if you are prepared to sacrifice the significant cost in hardware and heat.
If you want to go the ClassA route, then look at the Aleph5. This is a different beast to the Zen and the specs will keep the majority happy!
See: http://www.adelaide.net.au/~mefinnis/passlabs/aleph4.htm
cheers & most of all ...... HAVE FUN, this is what life is really about ;-)
mark
Forgot about poor old Lisandro, who wrote:
"Ok, here's my dilema. I'm about to build a stereo integrated preamp/amplifier to start forming my hi-fi rig. I have the preamp already designed, and i was looking for power amplifiers plans on the web to work on. Right now i'm between any of the "Zen" derivates by Nelson Pass and the "New improved 60-100W amp" by Rod Elliot (www.sound.au.com).
... Snip ...
This was OptiMOS revisted, wasn't it .... SORRY
Try to get access to the 2 "styles" of amps and listen to them. Really, at the end of the day, you will be listening to the amp, so you have to be comfortable with how it performs.
In Class A/B I would point you to the Leach amp. I used one of these for many years and the hardware/heat cost is not prohibitive.
See: http://users.ece.gatech.edu:80/~mleach/lowtim/
Listen to a Class A amp and decide for yourself if you are prepared to sacrifice the significant cost in hardware and heat.
If you want to go the ClassA route, then look at the Aleph5. This is a different beast to the Zen and the specs will keep the majority happy!
See: http://www.adelaide.net.au/~mefinnis/passlabs/aleph4.htm
cheers & most of all ...... HAVE FUN, this is what life is really about ;-)
mark
Was planting herbs again/still...
I'll just skip from point to point, not necessarily in order.
Pete said that he'd had to eat his words on cables; that they do have sonic consequences. Later he mentioned cable direction in passing. This is my single biggest gripe with the Universe. Having come from a viewpoint that the specs matter to realize that they don't tell the story (or at least not the whole story), I can sympathize with Pete. I had to (quite humbly) eat my words, as I had fought mighty battles defending specs. However, once I started listening instead of reading spec sheets, I could at least see one or more reasonable possibilities that might lead to the sonic differences I heard. But cable direction...*sigh* {angry muttering & grumbling) this is the one that reminds me of the frustration that I felt way back when I thought numbers mattered and people started talking what I regarded then as weak-headed nonsense. I can hear cable direction, but I've never seen a hypothesis/theory/rationalization that I thought was worth a rotted bean. Even now, as one of the 'subjective' folks, I yearn for an explanation that I can sink my teeth into. As for the repeatability of it--we got in a shipment of cables (Vampire Wire, silver coax) once upon a time. A fellow I worked with took them into the room where we kept the good equipment and marked the direction. Only, since we were going to be selling these wires (this was before cables came in sealed boxes like they do now--for that matter, it was before cables came pre-marked for direction) he marked them by unscrewing the RCA plugs and marking the little bit of the jacket that protruded inside the shell with an indelible marker. That way the customer could buy a pair and take them home without any obvious markings, yet know which way was which. Now to the crux of the matter. The next day, I, not knowing that my coworker had done this, took the cables into the high end room and marked the cables, too. My method was to put a piece of Scotch tape around one end. When we realized our duplicated efforts, we had a good laugh, then pulled back the RCA shells to compare his marks with my tape.
How many agreed?
All of them. 100%
How many indivudual cables? Either twenty or thirty (i.e. 10 or fifteen pairs) I don't remember.
Statistical fluke? Maybe. But then again...maybe not.
But I'd still like a good explanation. The best I've heard yet, comparatively speaking, is the 'diode effect' between adjacent crystals of metal within the wire...but I don't buy it. Like I said, I can sympathize with the folks who look at the issue and say that it's just a piece of wire, there *can't* be any difference. But there is. And I don't like it. I want a rational explanation, confound it! (And life would be so much simpler if things acted the way they *ought* to. Hey, Universe, come here! I've got a bone to pick with you...)
Mark expressed unhappiness with my saying that double blind tests weren't the ticket; said but things don't end there. I agree completely. However, observer bias doesn't *have* to play a part. If anything, due to reputation, cost, and prior positive experience I should have been cutting flips over my friend's MIT cables. Yet I wasn't. Yes, there are people who are unable to separate expectations, hopes, and pure wishful thinking from reality, but this isn't true of everyone. I think part of it--don't reject this out of hand, think about it for a minute--is having been (at least in my case) around enough high-end gear to get somewhat jaded. Ho-hum, another $2000 cable. Yes, that sounds odd, but it does take some of the stars out of one's eyes. If it's the *first* mega-buck cable someone heard, then yes, they might have high expectations. But the tenth? No longer a thrill, just audio as usual.
(And no, I'm not made out of money, lest someone think I'm trying to say something along those lines. Remember that: 1) I used to earn a living selling this stuff, so I got to hear things every day that I didn't have to pay for, and 2) the cables I'm describing are on loan. My own cables are actually quite old and humble by today's standards: 8ga for the subs, Levinson HC-10 for the woofer panels, short lengths of 10ga to jumper from the Alephs to the mids, and old MIT 650 for the tweeters. This ties to another point that I have made repeatedly. One should always strive for an honest assessment of where one's own equipment stands in relation to the other stuff out there. I know exactly how good my cables are...and how good they aren't. I'll get around to updating cables later. Note that, if anything, this should make me even *more* anxious to be impressed by these new cables, as my own are so dated. Doesn't have to work that way, though.)
Now, let me tie this to something Keith said later. He outlined scientific due process as it relates to the color of the sky. Unfortunately, his list left out the crucial first step: Step number one is to observe that the sky is blue. Until you look, you have no way of knowing what color it is. It might be pink, like Mars, for instance, in which case you have no need to formulate a testable hypothesis for blue sky. You'd need a testable hypothesis for pink sky. Like I said, scientific process *must* begin with an observation. Promitheus, I think, got more to the essence of what I was saying, although Mark later came back and said 'spot "different"' which is what I regard as the necessary first step in the audio world; we'll hash out which circuit is closer to the concert hall (and why) later. I'm not saying that blind tests are *never* appropriate. My point was that, for those who believe that numbers are good indicators of the 'sound' of a piece of equipment, the first step should be to demonstrate the falsity (Keith wants falsity testing--here it is...for the objective position) of that viewpoint. Then, and only then, can we begin the long (and so far unfinished) process of building testable theories as to what's going on. At some point, a single or double blind test may be in order. My preference is to live with a piece for a while. (Someone else said this above, but I forget who.) That way a wonderful detail in the upper midrange has time to reveal itself as actually nothing more than an annoying peak--after you've listened to about fifty albums of different sorts of music. This is really nothing more than an extended test period. Female vocals may tell you what you need to know, but you may not get around to listening to them the first day, or even the second.
My own feeling about the BS factor in audio advertizing is congruent with everyone else's. There's way too much. However, if you look at any other product category (drink a certain brand of beer and a young lady with more curves than the Autobahn will fall in love with you) there's just as much hype. It's part of life. Don't worry about it. Hyperbole in advertising has been with us since the first humans began trading chipped stone spear points. Flumph made the best ones. Everybody knew that. Until Borfum came along and hooted louder. Thus was marketing born. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
While I understand and sympathize with Mark's reluctance to get into chest-pounding wars over what hardware a person owns, I also feel that Jam had a valid question when he asked what Keith had. Why? Because open knowledge of test conditions is part of science; part of the peer review step, so that others may confirm or refute what the original person said. If an astronomer says that a new star has been found, and another is unable to confirm it, then it's relevant to note that astronomer #1 was using an X-ray telescope in orbit, whereas astronomer #2 was using an Earth-based 'scope that was unable to detect that part of the spectrum since the atmosphere blocks much of the incoming X-rays. As I've said elsewhere, I've never heard a mid-fi system with enough resolution to hear cable direction. For those people who own mid-fi systems, the statement that cables have direction is unverifiable, but it is *also unfalsifiable*. Yet they can understandably conclude that the original statement was false. As I said above, I can sympathize--because it seems ridiculous--but cable direction is there.
Just for the record, my system consists of the following:
Cartridge--Lyra Helicon (I'm not ready to attempt DIY phono cartridges)
Arm--Emminent Technologies II, no mods or updates
Turntable--Goldmund Studio, I replaced the wall wart power supply with a junker out of a piece of computer equipment that happened to be the right voltage, yes, it was audible
CD--I 90% listen to vinyl, when I want to listen to CD, I use the DVD player (a Sony something or other) out of the AV system; this is another case of knowing where what you're using in relation to The Great Cosmic All comes into play.
Tuner--None
Preamp--Conrad Johnson Premier Three
Crossover, amps, and speakers--As detailed elsewhere, I won't take up more space here, as it's a quad-amped system and gets complicated
Speaker cables--As above
Interconnects--Some Vampire with Tiffany ends, some monofilament silver twisted pair, some random copper twisted pair; going to quad from tri-amped kinda ran me out of cables and I just made some stuff up on the spot--like speaker cables, I'll sort all this out later, as I'm going to go from short interconnect & long speaker cables to long interconnect & short speaker cables.
For those unfamiliar with some or all of the above, most of it dates from the early to mid-80's. It was good then, but is sorely dated now. I've got a lot of work to do to update my system, and I'm trying to do it all at the same time, only there aren't enough hours in a day. The story of how I got this far behind...never mind, you don't want to know.
Grey
I'll just skip from point to point, not necessarily in order.
Pete said that he'd had to eat his words on cables; that they do have sonic consequences. Later he mentioned cable direction in passing. This is my single biggest gripe with the Universe. Having come from a viewpoint that the specs matter to realize that they don't tell the story (or at least not the whole story), I can sympathize with Pete. I had to (quite humbly) eat my words, as I had fought mighty battles defending specs. However, once I started listening instead of reading spec sheets, I could at least see one or more reasonable possibilities that might lead to the sonic differences I heard. But cable direction...*sigh* {angry muttering & grumbling) this is the one that reminds me of the frustration that I felt way back when I thought numbers mattered and people started talking what I regarded then as weak-headed nonsense. I can hear cable direction, but I've never seen a hypothesis/theory/rationalization that I thought was worth a rotted bean. Even now, as one of the 'subjective' folks, I yearn for an explanation that I can sink my teeth into. As for the repeatability of it--we got in a shipment of cables (Vampire Wire, silver coax) once upon a time. A fellow I worked with took them into the room where we kept the good equipment and marked the direction. Only, since we were going to be selling these wires (this was before cables came in sealed boxes like they do now--for that matter, it was before cables came pre-marked for direction) he marked them by unscrewing the RCA plugs and marking the little bit of the jacket that protruded inside the shell with an indelible marker. That way the customer could buy a pair and take them home without any obvious markings, yet know which way was which. Now to the crux of the matter. The next day, I, not knowing that my coworker had done this, took the cables into the high end room and marked the cables, too. My method was to put a piece of Scotch tape around one end. When we realized our duplicated efforts, we had a good laugh, then pulled back the RCA shells to compare his marks with my tape.
How many agreed?
All of them. 100%
How many indivudual cables? Either twenty or thirty (i.e. 10 or fifteen pairs) I don't remember.
Statistical fluke? Maybe. But then again...maybe not.
But I'd still like a good explanation. The best I've heard yet, comparatively speaking, is the 'diode effect' between adjacent crystals of metal within the wire...but I don't buy it. Like I said, I can sympathize with the folks who look at the issue and say that it's just a piece of wire, there *can't* be any difference. But there is. And I don't like it. I want a rational explanation, confound it! (And life would be so much simpler if things acted the way they *ought* to. Hey, Universe, come here! I've got a bone to pick with you...)
Mark expressed unhappiness with my saying that double blind tests weren't the ticket; said but things don't end there. I agree completely. However, observer bias doesn't *have* to play a part. If anything, due to reputation, cost, and prior positive experience I should have been cutting flips over my friend's MIT cables. Yet I wasn't. Yes, there are people who are unable to separate expectations, hopes, and pure wishful thinking from reality, but this isn't true of everyone. I think part of it--don't reject this out of hand, think about it for a minute--is having been (at least in my case) around enough high-end gear to get somewhat jaded. Ho-hum, another $2000 cable. Yes, that sounds odd, but it does take some of the stars out of one's eyes. If it's the *first* mega-buck cable someone heard, then yes, they might have high expectations. But the tenth? No longer a thrill, just audio as usual.
(And no, I'm not made out of money, lest someone think I'm trying to say something along those lines. Remember that: 1) I used to earn a living selling this stuff, so I got to hear things every day that I didn't have to pay for, and 2) the cables I'm describing are on loan. My own cables are actually quite old and humble by today's standards: 8ga for the subs, Levinson HC-10 for the woofer panels, short lengths of 10ga to jumper from the Alephs to the mids, and old MIT 650 for the tweeters. This ties to another point that I have made repeatedly. One should always strive for an honest assessment of where one's own equipment stands in relation to the other stuff out there. I know exactly how good my cables are...and how good they aren't. I'll get around to updating cables later. Note that, if anything, this should make me even *more* anxious to be impressed by these new cables, as my own are so dated. Doesn't have to work that way, though.)
Now, let me tie this to something Keith said later. He outlined scientific due process as it relates to the color of the sky. Unfortunately, his list left out the crucial first step: Step number one is to observe that the sky is blue. Until you look, you have no way of knowing what color it is. It might be pink, like Mars, for instance, in which case you have no need to formulate a testable hypothesis for blue sky. You'd need a testable hypothesis for pink sky. Like I said, scientific process *must* begin with an observation. Promitheus, I think, got more to the essence of what I was saying, although Mark later came back and said 'spot "different"' which is what I regard as the necessary first step in the audio world; we'll hash out which circuit is closer to the concert hall (and why) later. I'm not saying that blind tests are *never* appropriate. My point was that, for those who believe that numbers are good indicators of the 'sound' of a piece of equipment, the first step should be to demonstrate the falsity (Keith wants falsity testing--here it is...for the objective position) of that viewpoint. Then, and only then, can we begin the long (and so far unfinished) process of building testable theories as to what's going on. At some point, a single or double blind test may be in order. My preference is to live with a piece for a while. (Someone else said this above, but I forget who.) That way a wonderful detail in the upper midrange has time to reveal itself as actually nothing more than an annoying peak--after you've listened to about fifty albums of different sorts of music. This is really nothing more than an extended test period. Female vocals may tell you what you need to know, but you may not get around to listening to them the first day, or even the second.
My own feeling about the BS factor in audio advertizing is congruent with everyone else's. There's way too much. However, if you look at any other product category (drink a certain brand of beer and a young lady with more curves than the Autobahn will fall in love with you) there's just as much hype. It's part of life. Don't worry about it. Hyperbole in advertising has been with us since the first humans began trading chipped stone spear points. Flumph made the best ones. Everybody knew that. Until Borfum came along and hooted louder. Thus was marketing born. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
While I understand and sympathize with Mark's reluctance to get into chest-pounding wars over what hardware a person owns, I also feel that Jam had a valid question when he asked what Keith had. Why? Because open knowledge of test conditions is part of science; part of the peer review step, so that others may confirm or refute what the original person said. If an astronomer says that a new star has been found, and another is unable to confirm it, then it's relevant to note that astronomer #1 was using an X-ray telescope in orbit, whereas astronomer #2 was using an Earth-based 'scope that was unable to detect that part of the spectrum since the atmosphere blocks much of the incoming X-rays. As I've said elsewhere, I've never heard a mid-fi system with enough resolution to hear cable direction. For those people who own mid-fi systems, the statement that cables have direction is unverifiable, but it is *also unfalsifiable*. Yet they can understandably conclude that the original statement was false. As I said above, I can sympathize--because it seems ridiculous--but cable direction is there.
Just for the record, my system consists of the following:
Cartridge--Lyra Helicon (I'm not ready to attempt DIY phono cartridges)
Arm--Emminent Technologies II, no mods or updates
Turntable--Goldmund Studio, I replaced the wall wart power supply with a junker out of a piece of computer equipment that happened to be the right voltage, yes, it was audible
CD--I 90% listen to vinyl, when I want to listen to CD, I use the DVD player (a Sony something or other) out of the AV system; this is another case of knowing where what you're using in relation to The Great Cosmic All comes into play.
Tuner--None
Preamp--Conrad Johnson Premier Three
Crossover, amps, and speakers--As detailed elsewhere, I won't take up more space here, as it's a quad-amped system and gets complicated
Speaker cables--As above
Interconnects--Some Vampire with Tiffany ends, some monofilament silver twisted pair, some random copper twisted pair; going to quad from tri-amped kinda ran me out of cables and I just made some stuff up on the spot--like speaker cables, I'll sort all this out later, as I'm going to go from short interconnect & long speaker cables to long interconnect & short speaker cables.
For those unfamiliar with some or all of the above, most of it dates from the early to mid-80's. It was good then, but is sorely dated now. I've got a lot of work to do to update my system, and I'm trying to do it all at the same time, only there aren't enough hours in a day. The story of how I got this far behind...never mind, you don't want to know.
Grey
Re: Keep taking the music
Originally posted by ALW [/i]
/stuff deleted.....
> It raises another interesting point though, many amplified
> concerts (rock) I've been to could hardly be classed as
> the last word in quality (using the terms defined by you
> and others here), but with very, very few exceptions they
> are always more involving than listening to recordings. I
> wonder why?
Simple, Atmosphere. You're there, your friends are all around, you're jumping up and down, you're having a real good time. That's one of the reasons live concerts are so good.... you have the opportunity to get involved.
>If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a >personal opinion and only a personal opinion.
> Utimately I cannot argue with this, but in my experience
> music that is genuinely involving to me, is genuinely
> involving to others.
Or does your obvious enthusiasm for that music communicate to them through your attitude, body language and voice?
> Andy.
regards, Keith
And I thought I'd finished. Darn!
Originally posted by ALW [/i]
/stuff deleted.....
> It raises another interesting point though, many amplified
> concerts (rock) I've been to could hardly be classed as
> the last word in quality (using the terms defined by you
> and others here), but with very, very few exceptions they
> are always more involving than listening to recordings. I
> wonder why?
Simple, Atmosphere. You're there, your friends are all around, you're jumping up and down, you're having a real good time. That's one of the reasons live concerts are so good.... you have the opportunity to get involved.
>If you consider the music is not 'involving' then that's a >personal opinion and only a personal opinion.
> Utimately I cannot argue with this, but in my experience
> music that is genuinely involving to me, is genuinely
> involving to others.
Or does your obvious enthusiasm for that music communicate to them through your attitude, body language and voice?
> Andy.
regards, Keith
And I thought I'd finished. Darn!
Originally posted by GRollins
Was planting herbs again/still...
/lots of deketions and so on.
> Pete said that he'd had to eat his words on cables; that
> they do have sonic consequences. Later he mentioned cable
> direction in passing. This is my single biggest gripe with
> the Universe.
Ah, so the universe is wrong and Grey is right...? Non sequitur?
> I can hear cable direction, but I've never seen a
> hypothesis/theory/rationalization that I thought was worth > a rotted bean.
Under double blind or ABX conditions? This test has been done (JAES sometime for details). The golden ears failed.
> Even now, as one of the 'subjective' folks, I yearn for an
> explanation that I can sink my teeth into.
Special pleading.
> As for the repeatability of it--we got in a shipment of
> cables (Vampire Wire, silver coax) once upon a time. The
> next day, I, not knowing that my coworker had done this,
> took the cables into the high end room and marked the
> cables, too. My method was to put a piece of Scotch tape
> around one end. When we realized our duplicated efforts,
> we had a good laugh, then pulled back the RCA shells to
> compare his marks with my tape.
> How many agreed?
> All of them. 100%
Repeatability my eye! Statistics of small numbers more like.
> How many indivudual cables? Either twenty or thirty (i.e.
> 10 or fifteen pairs) I don't remember.
> Statistical fluke? Maybe. But then again...maybe not.
Yes. Now let's see you do it again.... under controlled conditions.
> Like I said, I can sympathize with the folks who look at
> the issue and say that it's just a piece of wire, there
> *can't* be any difference. But there is. And I don't like
> it. I want a rational explanation, confound it! (And life
> would be so much simpler if things acted the way they
> *ought* to. Hey, Universe, come here! I've got a bone to
> pick with you...)
And the universe is wrong? Grey is right. Look, I can see that you truly believe that you can hear all these things. But just once, have you done the tests under double blind conditions? Or are you like the Stereophile bloke who, when faced with the results of double blind tests dismissed them out of hand?
> Mark expressed unhappiness with my saying that double
> blind tests weren't the ticket; said but things don't end
> there. I agree completely. However, observer bias doesn't
> *have* to play a part.
It doesn't? Do you know what observer bias is? It runs a whole gamut. From unconscious biases to mood on the day, in fact everything about the person doing the test that could affect the outcome. That's why double blind or ABX. And, please don't give me the old catchphrase about these affecting the observer. Tests can be done in your own home, under your own listening condition with gear you like and you can listen to whatever music you like for as long as you like.
> If anything, due to reputation, cost, and prior positive
> experience I should have been cutting flips over my
> friend's MIT cables. Yet I wasn't.
> Yes, there are people who are unable to separate
> expectations, hopes, and pure wishful thinking from
> reality, but this isn't true of everyone.
Grey, this seems to me like the post of someone who is having to rethink his rethink? Is this a fair statement?
> I think part of it--don't reject this out of hand, think
> about it for a minute--is having been (at least in my
> case) around enough high-end gear to get somewhat jaded.
> Ho-hum, another $2000 cable. Yes, that sounds odd, but it
> does take some of the stars out of one's eyes. If it's the
> *first* mega-buck cable someone heard, then yes, they
> might have high expectations. But the tenth? No longer a
> thrill, just audio as usual.
Better get back to some live performances. The real world instead of the illusionary world of audio. More concerts....
> This ties to another point that I have made repeatedly.
> One should always strive for an honest assessment of where
> one's own equipment stands in relation to the other stuff
> out there.
Why? What's the point? If one is happy with what one has what the hell's the point of doing such comparisons. Just results in envy and jealousness. Do you do that with your car? Your wife?
> Now, let me tie this to something Keith said later. He
> outlined scientific due process as it relates to the color
> of the sky. Unfortunately, his list left out the crucial
> first step: Step number one is to observe that the sky is
> blue.
I didn't outline it as it relates to the coulour of the sky. I used the colour of the sky as examples. Ummm, possibly I assumed that they observed the sky first?
> (Keith wants falsity testing--here it is...for the
> objective position) of that viewpoint.
Grey, it's not possible to prove a negative. I look only for the scientific principle of potential falsifiability. That means that for something to be scientific, there must be ways that is could potentially be wrong. For example, I say the sky is blue. You come along and tell me the sky is pink. Together with lots of other people we go and observe - not together, separately. Oy vay, the sky is observed to be pink... by lots of people over a reasonable time interval. Thus my hypothesis is falsified. I'm wrong I complain for a while and eventually get over it. Are you prepared to put your view of audio to such scrutiny? If not, why not?
Oh, and I'm not attacking your preferences. They're your's and no-one should even try to take them away from you. It would be arrogant to think otherwise. I attack those who say that what they hear is REAL. It's their opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Reading those Stereophile reviews and reading as they pile hyperbole on hyperbole on non sequitur. Oh dear!
> My preference is to live with a piece for a while.
> (Someone else said this above, but I forget who.) That way
> a wonderful detail in the upper midrange has time to
> reveal itself as actually nothing more than an annoying
> peak--after you've listened to about fifty albums of
> different sorts of music.
That's you preference and allows you time to get used to it. This too has been tested.
> This is really nothing more than an extended test period.
No it isn't. It's an extended listening period. Completely irrelevant from the scientific point of view and completely irrelevant from the point of view of valid results. (Valid to you maybe, but not to me and probably not to a statistician). After all, the population size is one... you.
> However, if you look at any other product category (drink
> a certain brand of beer and a young lady with more curves
> than the Autobahn will fall in love with you) there's just
> as much hype.
That's the old "they're also doing it, therefore I'm excused" argument.
> Flumph made the best ones. Everybody knew that. Until
> Borfum came along and hooted louder. Thus was marketing
> born. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
I like this, and yes, you're right.
> I also feel that Jam had a valid question when he asked
> what Keith had. Why? Because open knowledge of test
> conditions is part of science; part of the peer review
> step, so that others may confirm or refute what the
> original person said.
If we were talking about specific tests of specific equipment, then I'd agree with you. The methodology is extremely important. But we weren't. We were talking about philosophies and the reasons for such testing and the metamethodology. We've been talking about metas, nothing else.
> If an astronomer says that a new star has been found, and
> another is unable to confirm it, then it's relevant to
> note that astronomer #1 was using an X-ray telescope in
> orbit, whereas astronomer #2 was using an Earth-based
> 'scope that was unable to detect that part of the spectrum
> since the atmosphere blocks much of the incoming X-rays.
No it isn't. It's relevant to ask each of them their methodologies as a first step. When they give you the results, they should include the methodologies. That way we can see if they're valid methodologies and if the results are repeatable and verifiable using that or other methods. So caps on. NONE OF THE SUBJECTIVE TESTS THAT I SEE IN THE AUDIO WORLD ARE REPEATABLE OR VERIFIABLE, NOR ARE THEY POTENTIALLY FALSIFIABLE." This puts them immediately into the region of hokum from my point of view.
> Grey
Oh boy. I had a look at the Stereophile site today. The level of hokum that there is dished out as fact. Oh boy. It's pitiful. If that's the current state of the critical press, deity help us all.
And Grey, good luck in upgrading your system. I hope you get equipment that you're happy with and will serve you for a long time to come. The main thing is "DO you like it"? If so then that's all that matters.
best regards, Keith
Was planting herbs again/still...
/lots of deketions and so on.
> Pete said that he'd had to eat his words on cables; that
> they do have sonic consequences. Later he mentioned cable
> direction in passing. This is my single biggest gripe with
> the Universe.
Ah, so the universe is wrong and Grey is right...? Non sequitur?
> I can hear cable direction, but I've never seen a
> hypothesis/theory/rationalization that I thought was worth > a rotted bean.
Under double blind or ABX conditions? This test has been done (JAES sometime for details). The golden ears failed.
> Even now, as one of the 'subjective' folks, I yearn for an
> explanation that I can sink my teeth into.
Special pleading.
> As for the repeatability of it--we got in a shipment of
> cables (Vampire Wire, silver coax) once upon a time. The
> next day, I, not knowing that my coworker had done this,
> took the cables into the high end room and marked the
> cables, too. My method was to put a piece of Scotch tape
> around one end. When we realized our duplicated efforts,
> we had a good laugh, then pulled back the RCA shells to
> compare his marks with my tape.
> How many agreed?
> All of them. 100%
Repeatability my eye! Statistics of small numbers more like.
> How many indivudual cables? Either twenty or thirty (i.e.
> 10 or fifteen pairs) I don't remember.
> Statistical fluke? Maybe. But then again...maybe not.
Yes. Now let's see you do it again.... under controlled conditions.
> Like I said, I can sympathize with the folks who look at
> the issue and say that it's just a piece of wire, there
> *can't* be any difference. But there is. And I don't like
> it. I want a rational explanation, confound it! (And life
> would be so much simpler if things acted the way they
> *ought* to. Hey, Universe, come here! I've got a bone to
> pick with you...)
And the universe is wrong? Grey is right. Look, I can see that you truly believe that you can hear all these things. But just once, have you done the tests under double blind conditions? Or are you like the Stereophile bloke who, when faced with the results of double blind tests dismissed them out of hand?
> Mark expressed unhappiness with my saying that double
> blind tests weren't the ticket; said but things don't end
> there. I agree completely. However, observer bias doesn't
> *have* to play a part.
It doesn't? Do you know what observer bias is? It runs a whole gamut. From unconscious biases to mood on the day, in fact everything about the person doing the test that could affect the outcome. That's why double blind or ABX. And, please don't give me the old catchphrase about these affecting the observer. Tests can be done in your own home, under your own listening condition with gear you like and you can listen to whatever music you like for as long as you like.
> If anything, due to reputation, cost, and prior positive
> experience I should have been cutting flips over my
> friend's MIT cables. Yet I wasn't.
> Yes, there are people who are unable to separate
> expectations, hopes, and pure wishful thinking from
> reality, but this isn't true of everyone.
Grey, this seems to me like the post of someone who is having to rethink his rethink? Is this a fair statement?
> I think part of it--don't reject this out of hand, think
> about it for a minute--is having been (at least in my
> case) around enough high-end gear to get somewhat jaded.
> Ho-hum, another $2000 cable. Yes, that sounds odd, but it
> does take some of the stars out of one's eyes. If it's the
> *first* mega-buck cable someone heard, then yes, they
> might have high expectations. But the tenth? No longer a
> thrill, just audio as usual.
Better get back to some live performances. The real world instead of the illusionary world of audio. More concerts....
> This ties to another point that I have made repeatedly.
> One should always strive for an honest assessment of where
> one's own equipment stands in relation to the other stuff
> out there.
Why? What's the point? If one is happy with what one has what the hell's the point of doing such comparisons. Just results in envy and jealousness. Do you do that with your car? Your wife?
> Now, let me tie this to something Keith said later. He
> outlined scientific due process as it relates to the color
> of the sky. Unfortunately, his list left out the crucial
> first step: Step number one is to observe that the sky is
> blue.
I didn't outline it as it relates to the coulour of the sky. I used the colour of the sky as examples. Ummm, possibly I assumed that they observed the sky first?
> (Keith wants falsity testing--here it is...for the
> objective position) of that viewpoint.
Grey, it's not possible to prove a negative. I look only for the scientific principle of potential falsifiability. That means that for something to be scientific, there must be ways that is could potentially be wrong. For example, I say the sky is blue. You come along and tell me the sky is pink. Together with lots of other people we go and observe - not together, separately. Oy vay, the sky is observed to be pink... by lots of people over a reasonable time interval. Thus my hypothesis is falsified. I'm wrong I complain for a while and eventually get over it. Are you prepared to put your view of audio to such scrutiny? If not, why not?
Oh, and I'm not attacking your preferences. They're your's and no-one should even try to take them away from you. It would be arrogant to think otherwise. I attack those who say that what they hear is REAL. It's their opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Reading those Stereophile reviews and reading as they pile hyperbole on hyperbole on non sequitur. Oh dear!
> My preference is to live with a piece for a while.
> (Someone else said this above, but I forget who.) That way
> a wonderful detail in the upper midrange has time to
> reveal itself as actually nothing more than an annoying
> peak--after you've listened to about fifty albums of
> different sorts of music.
That's you preference and allows you time to get used to it. This too has been tested.
> This is really nothing more than an extended test period.
No it isn't. It's an extended listening period. Completely irrelevant from the scientific point of view and completely irrelevant from the point of view of valid results. (Valid to you maybe, but not to me and probably not to a statistician). After all, the population size is one... you.
> However, if you look at any other product category (drink
> a certain brand of beer and a young lady with more curves
> than the Autobahn will fall in love with you) there's just
> as much hype.
That's the old "they're also doing it, therefore I'm excused" argument.
> Flumph made the best ones. Everybody knew that. Until
> Borfum came along and hooted louder. Thus was marketing
> born. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it.
I like this, and yes, you're right.
> I also feel that Jam had a valid question when he asked
> what Keith had. Why? Because open knowledge of test
> conditions is part of science; part of the peer review
> step, so that others may confirm or refute what the
> original person said.
If we were talking about specific tests of specific equipment, then I'd agree with you. The methodology is extremely important. But we weren't. We were talking about philosophies and the reasons for such testing and the metamethodology. We've been talking about metas, nothing else.
> If an astronomer says that a new star has been found, and
> another is unable to confirm it, then it's relevant to
> note that astronomer #1 was using an X-ray telescope in
> orbit, whereas astronomer #2 was using an Earth-based
> 'scope that was unable to detect that part of the spectrum
> since the atmosphere blocks much of the incoming X-rays.
No it isn't. It's relevant to ask each of them their methodologies as a first step. When they give you the results, they should include the methodologies. That way we can see if they're valid methodologies and if the results are repeatable and verifiable using that or other methods. So caps on. NONE OF THE SUBJECTIVE TESTS THAT I SEE IN THE AUDIO WORLD ARE REPEATABLE OR VERIFIABLE, NOR ARE THEY POTENTIALLY FALSIFIABLE." This puts them immediately into the region of hokum from my point of view.
> Grey
Oh boy. I had a look at the Stereophile site today. The level of hokum that there is dished out as fact. Oh boy. It's pitiful. If that's the current state of the critical press, deity help us all.
And Grey, good luck in upgrading your system. I hope you get equipment that you're happy with and will serve you for a long time to come. The main thing is "DO you like it"? If so then that's all that matters.
best regards, Keith
Hi, I am from the U.K. and agree that most hi-fi magazines really havn't got a clue and swallow the latest rubish that a select few companies feed them about the latest model.
I read Hi-fi world who have an objective view to everything they review and are always quick to point out the good and bad points and what sort of system it will likely compliment they really describe the sound of the equipment so people that like that sort of sound can make a short list without ever being told that the equipment is not worthy.
If anyone is interested they also had a very good design for a passive pre-amp with tape loop and article about it discussing various parts of the design.
My main reason for adding my messege is the blind testing and diffent sounds. I know for a fact that I can tell the diffrence between equipment, even small changes in blind testing. However my wife can't tell the diffrence between a cheap midi system and my seperates ??? Go Figure???
If measurements that we have available made any diffrence then my cheap bedroom midi system would sound better than my class A 55 watt per channel amp. Using the same source and speakers. Blind testing does work but not over a couple of tracks. It also depends on the music and source some CD player/turntable and amps will sound better than their price together and some will sound worse, if both source amp and apeakers all have a slightly warm presentation then all three items together may sound to warm and muddy. Blind tests may not work very well beacause one of the components being demoed may work better with the particular reference system they happen to be using.
Hope this makes sense.
I read Hi-fi world who have an objective view to everything they review and are always quick to point out the good and bad points and what sort of system it will likely compliment they really describe the sound of the equipment so people that like that sort of sound can make a short list without ever being told that the equipment is not worthy.
If anyone is interested they also had a very good design for a passive pre-amp with tape loop and article about it discussing various parts of the design.
My main reason for adding my messege is the blind testing and diffent sounds. I know for a fact that I can tell the diffrence between equipment, even small changes in blind testing. However my wife can't tell the diffrence between a cheap midi system and my seperates ??? Go Figure???
If measurements that we have available made any diffrence then my cheap bedroom midi system would sound better than my class A 55 watt per channel amp. Using the same source and speakers. Blind testing does work but not over a couple of tracks. It also depends on the music and source some CD player/turntable and amps will sound better than their price together and some will sound worse, if both source amp and apeakers all have a slightly warm presentation then all three items together may sound to warm and muddy. Blind tests may not work very well beacause one of the components being demoed may work better with the particular reference system they happen to be using.
Hope this makes sense.
Keith,
Various points:
I don't know about what methodologies Stereophile may (or may not) use. I know they're out there, but I don't read the magazine. If you don't like their tests, take your complaints to them.
Some of your replies don't even seem related to the parts of my post that you placed them next to, so I'm not clear how to respond to them. You mentioned non sequiturs, then go on to commit a number of them yourself. Worse yet, you contradict yourself. For example, you said at one point,"...you can listen to whatever music you like for as long as you like." Then later you said,"No, it isn't [an extended test period]. It's an extended listening period." There's no time limit on testing in science. You bandy the terminology about nicely, but don't seem to grasp the basics, such as the necessity of starting with an observation so as to have something to theorize about.
I could go on, but...
You said in an earlier post that you like controversy. I don't mind controversy, I suppose, but you, like some other people I've met, seem more interested in arguing as an end in itself. More specifically: You said earlier that you were taking a deliberate stance that was more extreme than your own personal feelings just to provoke a reaction. I fail to see the justification for such an action. The only conclusion I can draw is that you're just interested in head games.
Me?
I'm weary of it.
John,
The subject of women in audio is something that's always been of concern to me. I wish that more women were involved, even if not in the equipment angle of things (hardware, whether it's cars or fishing rods, seems to be mainly a 'guy' thing). You mentioned that your wife can't hear the difference in equipment. I've known a number of women who could easily hear differences...but simply didn't care. If a good system was available, they'd gladly listen to it, but if a cheap table radio was playing, they'd listen to that without complaint. Men in the same position seem to feel more...cheated, is as good a word as I can come up with at the moment. Men feel the lack more strongly if they're listening to something less than what it could be. But as to why women don't feel that lack--or don't care enough to pursue it--it's a mystery.
Grey
Various points:
I don't know about what methodologies Stereophile may (or may not) use. I know they're out there, but I don't read the magazine. If you don't like their tests, take your complaints to them.
Some of your replies don't even seem related to the parts of my post that you placed them next to, so I'm not clear how to respond to them. You mentioned non sequiturs, then go on to commit a number of them yourself. Worse yet, you contradict yourself. For example, you said at one point,"...you can listen to whatever music you like for as long as you like." Then later you said,"No, it isn't [an extended test period]. It's an extended listening period." There's no time limit on testing in science. You bandy the terminology about nicely, but don't seem to grasp the basics, such as the necessity of starting with an observation so as to have something to theorize about.
I could go on, but...
You said in an earlier post that you like controversy. I don't mind controversy, I suppose, but you, like some other people I've met, seem more interested in arguing as an end in itself. More specifically: You said earlier that you were taking a deliberate stance that was more extreme than your own personal feelings just to provoke a reaction. I fail to see the justification for such an action. The only conclusion I can draw is that you're just interested in head games.
Me?
I'm weary of it.
John,
The subject of women in audio is something that's always been of concern to me. I wish that more women were involved, even if not in the equipment angle of things (hardware, whether it's cars or fishing rods, seems to be mainly a 'guy' thing). You mentioned that your wife can't hear the difference in equipment. I've known a number of women who could easily hear differences...but simply didn't care. If a good system was available, they'd gladly listen to it, but if a cheap table radio was playing, they'd listen to that without complaint. Men in the same position seem to feel more...cheated, is as good a word as I can come up with at the moment. Men feel the lack more strongly if they're listening to something less than what it could be. But as to why women don't feel that lack--or don't care enough to pursue it--it's a mystery.
Grey
Originally posted by promitheus
> About cable directionality : The signal in a cable doesn´t
> travel through it but rather goes back and fourth. It´s
> ac. Why can´t some people understand that. Half cycle it
> comes and half it goes. If there were micro diodes ok?
> Wouldn´t it actually rectify the signal or what?
Yep. Totally right.
There is no evidence for micro diodes. Or for anything else that will affect the waveforms on the cable. For any reasonably constructed cable. There are after all, cables I wouldn't send audio through, nor any other signal for that matter, and there are specialised cables for particular requirements such as low noise pickup and so on.
The subjectivists have an intuitive idea that "Anything the music goes through changes it in some way". From this they then erect a colossal straw man and then try to justify it with half truths and exaggerations. To me, if this were true, the sheer number of joints and different types of wire in any amplifier would surely completely swamp any external cable effects.
The first fallacy is that it's music. It's an electrical waveform. As such it obeys all the known rules of physics. It doesn't become music until it hits the loudspeaker.
Ah, AC and DC voltages. If there is an infinite impedance on the destination end, the voltage just appears. There's no current flow. For realistic loads, there is a small current flow, as you say, back and forth with each half cycle. And, as you say, why can't the subjectivists get that straight?
regards, Keith
P.S. And there I am going to stop.
> About cable directionality : The signal in a cable doesn´t
> travel through it but rather goes back and fourth. It´s
> ac. Why can´t some people understand that. Half cycle it
> comes and half it goes. If there were micro diodes ok?
> Wouldn´t it actually rectify the signal or what?
Yep. Totally right.
There is no evidence for micro diodes. Or for anything else that will affect the waveforms on the cable. For any reasonably constructed cable. There are after all, cables I wouldn't send audio through, nor any other signal for that matter, and there are specialised cables for particular requirements such as low noise pickup and so on.
The subjectivists have an intuitive idea that "Anything the music goes through changes it in some way". From this they then erect a colossal straw man and then try to justify it with half truths and exaggerations. To me, if this were true, the sheer number of joints and different types of wire in any amplifier would surely completely swamp any external cable effects.
The first fallacy is that it's music. It's an electrical waveform. As such it obeys all the known rules of physics. It doesn't become music until it hits the loudspeaker.
Ah, AC and DC voltages. If there is an infinite impedance on the destination end, the voltage just appears. There's no current flow. For realistic loads, there is a small current flow, as you say, back and forth with each half cycle. And, as you say, why can't the subjectivists get that straight?
regards, Keith
P.S. And there I am going to stop.
I think the easiest way explain why most figures quoted for amplifiers mean nothing is - As long as people keep looking at these figures and using them to choose an amplifier companies are going to find ways to take cheap circuits and doctor them to produce better figures even if it doesn't result on an improvement in sound. As amplifiers get into the very high end you start to notice that less attention is paid to the figures and you can see some quite bad (looking) data that sounds sublime
I came to the concusion a long time ago the figurs mean little when choosing my equipment as on one of my systems I use a 20 year old transistor amplifier 55 watt class A push-pull with a highish THD figure and unremarkable other data apart from a frequency response of 5Hz - 85 Khz and it sounds imensely good. I had the amp in a hi-fi shop recently while trying out a michelle orbe turntable on quad electrostatic speakers and some B&W CDM 9 NT speakers. The shop manager who at first (becuse of age and figures) thought the amp would be out of it's depth quickly changed his mind. He actully said it was better than a QUAD 99pre/909power (the later being a 250watt class A beast). That is saying something as if people heared what they wanted to hear they would have imediatly been predisposed to hearing flaws in my amp.
Although the following link relates to a class A tube amp (300B) It makes some interesting reading and reasons why they have a zero feedback setting that produces 2% distortion in the second harmonic and why it is usually the preferred option when people compare it to the setting with neg. feedback and lower distortion.
I think the easiest way explain why most figures quoted for amplifiers mean nothing is - As long as people keep looking at these figures and using them to choose an amplifier companies are going to find ways to take cheap circuits and doctor them to produce better figures even if it doesn't result on an improvement in sound.
http://www.worldaudiodesign.co.uk/products/300bpse_description.html
To a more recent point cables interconnect and power are directional. I have been a sceptic of this (especially the power cable one) but I can hear the diffrence in blind testing. The way cables are made means that metal is drawn out to long thin lengths when doing this the grains of metal do not lie randomly but will tend to, for want of a better word, flow in the direction the wire was drawn out. This means that there is less resistance and diruptance in one way than the other. Important in interconnects.
On the point of the joints etc in the amp should cancel out the effects of a cable. For example if you took a bit of cable that degraded a siganl by 1% a meter and took a length of 2 meters it would degrade the signal. If you doubled the length it would degrade the signal more. One cant hide the other signal degredation it is accumulative so if you can protect the signal in the interconnect you have a more original wave form reaching the amp.
On a lighter note! Here is a wee description that should be in the dictionary.
Expert
Ex - Unknown Quantity
Spert - Drip under pressure
Take Care
[Edited by mr-mac on 07-10-2001 at 09:14 AM]
I came to the concusion a long time ago the figurs mean little when choosing my equipment as on one of my systems I use a 20 year old transistor amplifier 55 watt class A push-pull with a highish THD figure and unremarkable other data apart from a frequency response of 5Hz - 85 Khz and it sounds imensely good. I had the amp in a hi-fi shop recently while trying out a michelle orbe turntable on quad electrostatic speakers and some B&W CDM 9 NT speakers. The shop manager who at first (becuse of age and figures) thought the amp would be out of it's depth quickly changed his mind. He actully said it was better than a QUAD 99pre/909power (the later being a 250watt class A beast). That is saying something as if people heared what they wanted to hear they would have imediatly been predisposed to hearing flaws in my amp.
Although the following link relates to a class A tube amp (300B) It makes some interesting reading and reasons why they have a zero feedback setting that produces 2% distortion in the second harmonic and why it is usually the preferred option when people compare it to the setting with neg. feedback and lower distortion.
I think the easiest way explain why most figures quoted for amplifiers mean nothing is - As long as people keep looking at these figures and using them to choose an amplifier companies are going to find ways to take cheap circuits and doctor them to produce better figures even if it doesn't result on an improvement in sound.
http://www.worldaudiodesign.co.uk/products/300bpse_description.html
To a more recent point cables interconnect and power are directional. I have been a sceptic of this (especially the power cable one) but I can hear the diffrence in blind testing. The way cables are made means that metal is drawn out to long thin lengths when doing this the grains of metal do not lie randomly but will tend to, for want of a better word, flow in the direction the wire was drawn out. This means that there is less resistance and diruptance in one way than the other. Important in interconnects.
On the point of the joints etc in the amp should cancel out the effects of a cable. For example if you took a bit of cable that degraded a siganl by 1% a meter and took a length of 2 meters it would degrade the signal. If you doubled the length it would degrade the signal more. One cant hide the other signal degredation it is accumulative so if you can protect the signal in the interconnect you have a more original wave form reaching the amp.
On a lighter note! Here is a wee description that should be in the dictionary.
Expert
Ex - Unknown Quantity
Spert - Drip under pressure
Take Care
[Edited by mr-mac on 07-10-2001 at 09:14 AM]
The Big Drip!
John,
You make several important points.
The moment you assume that all the known rules apply to everything in the universe (or audio for that matter) you stop advancing and stagnate as a civilization.
The biggest form of ignorance is assuming you know all the answers because every answer reveals more questions but I guess ignorance is bliss for some.
Reminds us of of the time when men knew that the earth was flat........but they were experts back then.
Jam
[Edited by jam on 07-10-2001 at 11:54 AM]
John,
You make several important points.
The moment you assume that all the known rules apply to everything in the universe (or audio for that matter) you stop advancing and stagnate as a civilization.
The biggest form of ignorance is assuming you know all the answers because every answer reveals more questions but I guess ignorance is bliss for some.
Reminds us of of the time when men knew that the earth was flat........but they were experts back then.
Jam
[Edited by jam on 07-10-2001 at 11:54 AM]
Re: The Big Drip!
Originally posted by jam
> John,
> You make several important points.
You don't make any.
> The moment you assume that all the known rules apply to
> everything in the universe (or audio for that matter) you
> stop advancing and stagnate as a civilization.
Strawman. Ummm, how so? If you assume that all the known rules apply to the universe, then science stagnates. How does this extend to civilisation? (I know, I can't resist, but this is trite balderdash).
> The biggest form of ignorance is assuming you know all the
> answers because every answer reveals more questions but I
> guess ignorance is bliss for some.
Ummm, since when does subjective audio even raise the questions? Not is a scientifically verifiable way it doesn't.
> Reminds us of of the time when men knew that the earth was
> flat........but they were experts back then.
Muahahahahaha. Belly laugh. ROFL etc. Don't you see the complete rubbish in this statement? I think you're trying to rescue a proposition that's in deep rhetorical trouble. If you want to do so, then do in in a valid manner.
> Jam
regards, Keith
Originally posted by jam
> John,
> You make several important points.
You don't make any.
> The moment you assume that all the known rules apply to
> everything in the universe (or audio for that matter) you
> stop advancing and stagnate as a civilization.
Strawman. Ummm, how so? If you assume that all the known rules apply to the universe, then science stagnates. How does this extend to civilisation? (I know, I can't resist, but this is trite balderdash).
> The biggest form of ignorance is assuming you know all the
> answers because every answer reveals more questions but I
> guess ignorance is bliss for some.
Ummm, since when does subjective audio even raise the questions? Not is a scientifically verifiable way it doesn't.
> Reminds us of of the time when men knew that the earth was
> flat........but they were experts back then.
Muahahahahaha. Belly laugh. ROFL etc. Don't you see the complete rubbish in this statement? I think you're trying to rescue a proposition that's in deep rhetorical trouble. If you want to do so, then do in in a valid manner.
> Jam
regards, Keith
Keith and Promitheus,
I think many of these misconceptions have their origin based on real facts. For example, about directional cables I remember some kind of problems related with RF detection in cables and phono input stages, with high impedance and high gain. From this point to "microdiodes" effects over low impedance cables we have many ways to invent crazy theories.
About Lisandro's questions, have you ever tried Erno Borbely's SS designs (Audio Amateur Power Amp Projects book have some)? I Built some of them and they sounded very good.
Regards,
blmn
I think many of these misconceptions have their origin based on real facts. For example, about directional cables I remember some kind of problems related with RF detection in cables and phono input stages, with high impedance and high gain. From this point to "microdiodes" effects over low impedance cables we have many ways to invent crazy theories.
About Lisandro's questions, have you ever tried Erno Borbely's SS designs (Audio Amateur Power Amp Projects book have some)? I Built some of them and they sounded very good.
Regards,
blmn
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.