The choice of my system is based on the sound I like to hear and not on magazine recommendations etc as AJ or others may think..I understand that some one else may not like it,for any reason.I do not hear any real problems when I play back my own recordings either.So for now I'm very happy with it in my room,even without any treatment,except the basic curtains,carpet etc.......just a typical room.
I think dynamic range,as other things,is not perceived by all in the same way or level.I have heard systems that may have more dynamic range than mine,yet I could not live with them.Some friends may find my system one they can't live with.
Last edited:
Thanks AJ, interesting read. I missed that demo at RMAF.
I have here some old VU meters that have 2 needles. One for average, and another for peak. Never seen anything like them before. I use them for the same purpose that Bob Cordell does.
From his description, the RLJ track probably has an average to peak ratio of 21dB. Typical for classical and some big band recordings, not typical for pop and rock. Some older CDs did have this kind of dynamic range, alas not much anymore. More typical is 18dB or even 16dB. The recent compressed junk is 12-10dB.
I do think he is underestimating the peaks, tho. Bob says "Note that if one applies a continuous sinewave input to the box, both meters will read identically." I think they should not. The last time I looked, the peak of a sinewave was 3dB above its RMS average. So if his peak meter can catch a 10KHz peak (as he says) shouldn't the peak meter show +3dB on a sinewave? That's twice the power.
After all, the amp really does have to supply that power at the crest of the wave.
I have here some old VU meters that have 2 needles. One for average, and another for peak. Never seen anything like them before. I use them for the same purpose that Bob Cordell does.
From his description, the RLJ track probably has an average to peak ratio of 21dB. Typical for classical and some big band recordings, not typical for pop and rock. Some older CDs did have this kind of dynamic range, alas not much anymore. More typical is 18dB or even 16dB. The recent compressed junk is 12-10dB.
I do think he is underestimating the peaks, tho. Bob says "Note that if one applies a continuous sinewave input to the box, both meters will read identically." I think they should not. The last time I looked, the peak of a sinewave was 3dB above its RMS average. So if his peak meter can catch a 10KHz peak (as he says) shouldn't the peak meter show +3dB on a sinewave? That's twice the power.
After all, the amp really does have to supply that power at the crest of the wave.
But it's the skeptics who are guilty in case number two, on this forum anyway.
I'm still interested in seeing the results of an acceptable DBT that I don't have to pay a fee to read.
John
Hi, still odd, but anyway, the quickie sounded better than you thought, so you expected it to sound good but not that good. Your explaination doesn't quite gel with your, "It's directly counter to my every expectation and preference."
Your case is not I expected A but got B. It is a case of I expected a small A but got a Big A.
I am not saying your "...the terrific sound quality is kicking my backside." is the result of expectation bias, good/bad engineering, or personal preference, how could I know. I just don't think you can use this example to dismiss expectation bias.
Your question indicates you didn't get my gist.
I would also like to see the peaks but remember amplifiers are 'normally' rated in average power so it make sense to do it that way.
Often the difference between the two meters (peak/average) is only in the time constant in their detectors. The large tc shows average, the fast one shows (and may even hold) peaks. But if their scales are calibrated the same (likely RMS), they will indicate the same value with a sinewave input, although the average meter will be slower to get to that indication than the fast peak reading meter.
jd
Not in my perception. Sceptics often demand to be shown some documentation that a controlled test showed phase audibility, but not: 'I personally can't hear phase differences therefore it is inaudible'.
jd
Auplater, i know it is sometimes hard to follow these threads, but i commented Shanefields reasoning in an article AJinfla linked to.
I was asked why and tried to explain what the problem was.
The rules simply don´t discern between "believers" and "nonbelievers" , it is just the same set of rules for everyone.
So, once and for all times (i hope, but of course know better
), the burden of proof is on the claimant. No matter if you think it is a "believer claim" or a "nonbeliever claim" .Wishes
Something similar, but more that the protocol has to be pristine in every case.
This demand simply doesn´t depend on the fact that a possible result may suit the experimenters belief or may confirm current state of science, because otherwise you´ll just run in circle and practice bad science.
Wishes
Just drop in "single blind" instead of "sighted" and you have exactly the situation of the Shanefield/Johnsen exchange.
Wishes
@ SY,
yeah, i used absolute polarity because it enlightens the fact that positive test results doesn´t change anything.
BTW, afair we still don´t know if it is more an effect of the ear or more an asymmetrical effect of the loudspeaker.
You´ve stated, that there must exist "many many" test with negative results; i´ve explained in the "?burn in cable thread?" why, simply due to statistical reasons, the number of tests can´t (most probable) be high.
You´ve asserted, that all these test can´t suffer from the same faults. Why do you think so? You´ve read Leventhal´s articles, therefore you know, that a small number of trials is only justified if the participants detection ability is high (means p>=0.9, pretty basic stuff btw).
So, how many tests (using a small numbers of trials) could you cite, that show that the detection ability of their participants was that high?
I really don´t want to be offensive, but just reflect to your own refusal to change your test protocol. There is strong evidence that your test protocol suffers from the "detection of sameness problem", your reaction...pah.
You know, that the small number of trials is only justified if the detection ability of the participant is high; your comment to the incorporation of positive controls to show exactly that....red herring.
You were relying on a wrong probability table; even after pointed to the errors several times, did you try to do some calculations to see what was going wrong?
Remember the "hypergeomtrical distribution desaster" in the "burn in cable" thread; were you able to correct your reasoning and accept a new proposed test method after pointed to the errors?
Why do you think, that other experimenters inclination to put their own beliefs (about testing) to test is stronger than yours? That would be the only chance to avoid the simple repetition of the same errors in nearly every test.
Wishes
yeah, i used absolute polarity because it enlightens the fact that positive test results doesn´t change anything.
BTW, afair we still don´t know if it is more an effect of the ear or more an asymmetrical effect of the loudspeaker.
You´ve stated, that there must exist "many many" test with negative results; i´ve explained in the "?burn in cable thread?" why, simply due to statistical reasons, the number of tests can´t (most probable) be high.
You´ve asserted, that all these test can´t suffer from the same faults. Why do you think so? You´ve read Leventhal´s articles, therefore you know, that a small number of trials is only justified if the participants detection ability is high (means p>=0.9, pretty basic stuff btw).
So, how many tests (using a small numbers of trials) could you cite, that show that the detection ability of their participants was that high?
I really don´t want to be offensive, but just reflect to your own refusal to change your test protocol. There is strong evidence that your test protocol suffers from the "detection of sameness problem", your reaction...pah.
You know, that the small number of trials is only justified if the detection ability of the participant is high; your comment to the incorporation of positive controls to show exactly that....red herring.
You were relying on a wrong probability table; even after pointed to the errors several times, did you try to do some calculations to see what was going wrong?
Remember the "hypergeomtrical distribution desaster" in the "burn in cable" thread; were you able to correct your reasoning and accept a new proposed test method after pointed to the errors?
Why do you think, that other experimenters inclination to put their own beliefs (about testing) to test is stronger than yours? That would be the only chance to avoid the simple repetition of the same errors in nearly every test.
Wishes
Claims
I guess the semantics of claims vs. non-claims is the issue, but it's pointless to argue at this juncture. The vast majority of folks who use interconnects in the world have, by default, accepted the null (no difference), so testing whether or not this situation represents the "truth" as opposed to testing whether the few claiming otherwise seems fruitless, unless of course those claiming differences (believers in your vernacular) have monetary gain agendas. That's what I believe is the driving force for the claims...
Cheers
John Lichtenberger
Auplater, i know it is sometimes hard to follow these threads, but i commented Shanefields reasoning in an article AJinfla linked to.
I was asked why and tried to explain what the problem was.
The rules simply don´t discern between "believers" and "nonbelievers" , it is just the same set of rules for everyone.
So, once and for all times (i hope, but of course know better
Wishes
I guess the semantics of claims vs. non-claims is the issue, but it's pointless to argue at this juncture. The vast majority of folks who use interconnects in the world have, by default, accepted the null (no difference), so testing whether or not this situation represents the "truth" as opposed to testing whether the few claiming otherwise seems fruitless, unless of course those claiming differences (believers in your vernacular) have monetary gain agendas. That's what I believe is the driving force for the claims...
Cheers
John Lichtenberger
AFAIK, not one single claim of audible non-mundane cable differences is backed by ANY controlled tests, small number or no. That includes your own claimed tests. You've said that you have data, but won't publish it, nor will you share the test methods, procedures, setup, details, results, or analysis.
That doesn't inspire confidence.
A quick search of posts by the usual suspects on this forum may indicate otherwise.
John
Without dragging this too far afield, and trust issues aside
, no, I wasn't particularly expecting good sound from it. I had no reason to expect a keeper, even the original circuit values appear optimized for long life, near Class-B operation giving little promise for the iron. Like the Gainclone, it was a quickie meant to get me back into the swing of building and possibly act as another reference for my SE projects. Sure, I would do due diligence in regard to basic performance parameters but was far from expecting possibly the best amp I have.It was sighted, the circuit (still not drawn) evolved counter to almost all my design biases, and the results blew me away. When the mantra here is that audiophools are complete and unknowing pawns to sighted biases this experience appears to be a decent counterexample.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.