Very nicely put, Richard. As you say, the intuitive, right side of the brain is extremely astute, and often has a far better handle on certain things than the logical pathways. How that works for listening, for me, is that when I first listen to someone's system I do it out of the "corner of my ear" -- I deliberate engage in conversation, or tune into something else, while the system is running at a good volume, because then the brain can immediately sum up whether the sound is "right" or not.
Why that works is that the brain always has to eliminate the remaining levels of distortion in the sound replay, split that off from the musical content, which requires mental effort, exertion. High remanent distortion, fast onset of listener fatigue. So if you deliberately focus elsewhere the brain is then working much, much harder again, and the onset of mental overload is very fast -- you run to turn the volume down.
Thus, the goal is for the brain to be completely relaxed while listening at close to deafening levels, that's the internal flag that says the music sounds "real".
Frank
A similar occurrence to the billiards practice is well known to cyclists - if you want to steer around that rock, don't stare at it!
So I wouldn't dismiss the concept outright. Unfortunately, it comes too close for comfort to the medium's common excuse of "bad vibes" blocking "the other side" and other such silliness. What Mr. Marsh should have concluded, IMO, is that he was concentrating wrongly, not simply fault the concentration.
My perspective basically says that if an accurate and good-sounding piece of equipment is designed and built, the method used is secondary. Let's just accurately describe/define that method.
So I wouldn't dismiss the concept outright. Unfortunately, it comes too close for comfort to the medium's common excuse of "bad vibes" blocking "the other side" and other such silliness. What Mr. Marsh should have concluded, IMO, is that he was concentrating wrongly, not simply fault the concentration.
My perspective basically says that if an accurate and good-sounding piece of equipment is designed and built, the method used is secondary. Let's just accurately describe/define that method.
Like I said, there is nothing wrong with DBT'ing per se. Those who aurgue the methodology are doomed to failure.
However -- Not sure anything was 'wrong'... just needed to think 'differently'. Dont know if one CAN think differently while undergoing the DBT. Doesnt seem to be possible to think two ways simultaniously. We think serially about tasks. Now I am monitoring what my brain is doing (simultaneously/parallel thinking) while I sink those hard shots to learn more about the process. -Thx RNM
Last edited:
And what is possibly disturbing to some folks is that the closer you get to high level sound, the more every, single, little, tiny, thing matters, and it will drive you crazy!! Then, it truly can become balancing on the razor's edge, and the battle to retrieve always good sound can wear you down. Better, some times, just to fall back into a passable, reasonable "mediocrity" of typical hifi sound, put your feet up with a beer, and just forget about trying for the heights ... 
Frank
Frank
I guess one reason why it works the way it does for me, is that as I get closer I use nastier and nastier recordings to pinpoint where the remaining deficiencies are, and these do a beautiful job of that type of highlighting. These are recordings that most people would have given up on a long time ago: say, heavily produced new wave with synthesizer sounds and effects galore, with enormously deep reverb, etc. These are the albums when you finally get them right are quite amazing, huge soundscapes that seem to extend to forever; hard work, but worth it ...
Frank
Yes, of course, but it was a very different question in the "Fremer case" .
As reported, Michael Fremer talk to Clark, that he could hear differences between power amplifiers and Clark responded that Fremer could not be sure about that unless he did show this ability in controlled listener test under double blind conditions.
Michael Fremer accepted the challenge, it seems that he trained for it, did the test at the meeting and got 5 hits in a 5 trial test.
Indeed, for any individual it is far more important what he/she could actually detect; if someone else, somewhere, somehow did reach a significant result in a controlled listening test is not that important.
I totally agree that you´ve presented only garbage so far in the Fremer case.
"Recasting" of the "question" and bending of statistics included.
Why you refuse to act in the audio field according to the same scientific rules as you most probably do in your professional business is beyond my understanding.
@ RNMarsh,
It is well known that placing participants in a controlled test means presenting a situation they are not used to, will have an impact on their performance.
Therefore the participants should do some training before doing the real test and the experimenter has to include controls to ensure that the listeners are reaching a sufficient degree of sensitivity under the specific test conditions.
Jacob2, you make a lot of sense to me.
I don't know Michael Fremer very well, but I do know that he can hear audio differences. I know this from his past inputs and because I once did a listening test with him. Not a double blind one, however. 'Feats' like this are unusual, but do happen with high end audio listeners. I have seen similar 'feats' when I used to mix with serious audiophiles at CES and other places. It is sort of like they have a high 'ear IQ'. They can certainly defeat me, sometimes.
For example, I know people who are just 'nuts' about absolute polarity. They label EVERY record and CD with the proper listening polarity. My former business partner Bob Crump was one of those, as well as Brian Cheney, of VMPS. I have added an absolute polarity switch on my best preamps for the past 30 years, but I seldom use it, myself. It is for those who insist on it. This adds a significant complication to my line amps, but it is 'necessary' for ultimate performance.
I don't know Michael Fremer very well, but I do know that he can hear audio differences. I know this from his past inputs and because I once did a listening test with him. Not a double blind one, however. 'Feats' like this are unusual, but do happen with high end audio listeners. I have seen similar 'feats' when I used to mix with serious audiophiles at CES and other places. It is sort of like they have a high 'ear IQ'. They can certainly defeat me, sometimes.
For example, I know people who are just 'nuts' about absolute polarity. They label EVERY record and CD with the proper listening polarity. My former business partner Bob Crump was one of those, as well as Brian Cheney, of VMPS. I have added an absolute polarity switch on my best preamps for the past 30 years, but I seldom use it, myself. It is for those who insist on it. This adds a significant complication to my line amps, but it is 'necessary' for ultimate performance.
Yesterday, I had lunch with a colleague, who can actually hear differences. He writes a set of articles on speaker design in 'Audio EXpress' every month for awhile.
We had no trouble communicating about audio problems, and he actually was the guy that originally discovered Jack Bybee's 'quantum purifier' almost 20 years ago, and got me looking in that direction. It was REFRESHING to be talking with someone who respected my efforts and did not dispute them on every occasion.
We had no trouble communicating about audio problems, and he actually was the guy that originally discovered Jack Bybee's 'quantum purifier' almost 20 years ago, and got me looking in that direction. It was REFRESHING to be talking with someone who respected my efforts and did not dispute them on every occasion.
Well, really, who can't? That seems exceeding silly.
So it wasn't "discovered" by Bybee working on unnamed supposedly classified programs?
As an amateur student of the audio-design arts, I'm quite interested in following-along with the JC-80 build sub-thread project and observing the design elements that will be needed to optimize the eBay "sow's ear" into the proverbial "silk purse"...
I've received a pair of the JC-80 PC boards from Jim's Audio on eBay; attached are the requested schematic and BOM that accompany the boards. A nice touch is the inclusion of a set of on-board capacitance-multipliers as a final-stage of processing for the power-supply rails.
I also ordered a pair of the PC boards for implementing the Erno Borbely all-FET super-shunt power-supply regulator (All FET low-noise super shunt regulator PCB Borbely ! | eBay); these seem like they could make a complementary power-supply for the JC-80 boards
Of course the specified Toshiba 2SJ109/2SK389 dual-JFET's are unobtainium in nature, but B&D Enterprises offers matched pairs of genuine Toshiba 2SK170BL and 2SJ74BL single JFETS (nearly identical specifications to the low-noise dual-JFET's; B&D Enterprises - Electronic Components Distributor) which can be inserted into the board without modification (just rotate one of them to match the pin-outs of the dual-JFET's). Since the independent JFET's don't share a common substrate, there's no inherent thermal balance, but the use of the individual JFET's prevents a construction impasse...
Once I can find a few spare moments from my "day gig", I'll finish editing and post a BOM spreadsheet for the JC-80 boards with vendor part-numbers from Mouser.
JC-80 Build Sub-Thread
The Toshiba 2SJ313Y and 2SK2013Y power MOSFET's are also available from B&D Enterprises, but they're another low-availability Toshiba component and run about $5-$7/each. Q7/Q8 are just the pass devices in a pair of capacitance-multipliers on the JC-80 boards, so it would seem that IRF 510/9510 complementary devices should make viable substitutes at < $1/each. The IRF 510/9510 complementary devices are already specified for the output gain devices in the primary circuit, so I don't see any obvious reason they shouldn't serve effectively in the capacitance-multiplier stages...
John; anything special about the Toshiba power MOSFET's that makes them indispensable here?
The Toshiba 2SJ313Y and 2SK2013Y power MOSFET's are also available from B&D Enterprises, but they're another low-availability Toshiba component and run about $5-$7/each. Q7/Q8 are just the pass devices in a pair of capacitance-multipliers on the JC-80 boards, so it would seem that IRF 510/9510 complementary devices should make viable substitutes at < $1/each. The IRF 510/9510 complementary devices are already specified for the output gain devices in the primary circuit, so I don't see any obvious reason they shouldn't serve effectively in the capacitance-multiplier stages...
John; anything special about the Toshiba power MOSFET's that makes them indispensable here?
Last edited:
And who would this actually be? Presumably not Vance Dickenson or Joe d'Appolito?
As an amateur student of the audio-design arts, I'm quite interested in following-along with the JC-80 build sub-thread project and observing the design elements that will be needed to optimize the eBay "sow's ear" into the proverbial "silk purse"...
I've received a pair of the JC-80 PC boards from Jim's Audio on eBay; attached are the requested schematic and BOM that accompany the boards. A nice touch is the inclusion of a set of on-board capacitance-multipliers as a final-stage of processing for the power-supply rails.
I also ordered a pair of the PC boards for implementing the Erno Borbely all-FET super-shunt power-supply regulator (All FET low-noise super shunt regulator PCB Borbely ! | eBay); these seem like they could make a complementary power-supply for the JC-80 boards
Of course the specified Toshiba 2SJ109/2SK389 dual-JFET's are unobtainium in nature, but B&D Enterprises offers matched pairs of genuine Toshiba 2SK170BL and 2SJ74BL single JFETS (nearly identical specifications to the low-noise dual-JFET's; B&D Enterprises - Electronic Components Distributor) which can be inserted into the board without modification (just rotate one of them to match the pin-outs of the dual-JFET's). Since the independent JFET's don't share a common substrate, there's no inherent thermal balance, but the use of the individual JFET's prevents a construction impasse...
Once I can find a few spare moments from my "day gig", I'll finish editing and post a BOM spreadsheet for the JC-80 boards with vendor part-numbers from Mouser.
I have a fair number of 2SJ109BL and even more 2SK389V parts that I am unlikely ever to use up. One person contacted me via PM and is smiling I think.
The mismatch of Idss between the BL and the V is not all that serious a problem, as with a sufficient resistance between the pairs to set the current to be not much more than the lesser value of Idss, everything should work fine. Some parts may even overlap and have nearly equal Idss to begin with.
For current designs I'm high on using just available NFETs for critical locations, and of those, either the NXP BF862 with cascoding, which require some matching, or the very nice 2SK2145 pairs from Toshiba, their drawback being tiny packages and limited dissipations, also a hardwired connection between channels. However, the last constraint is less cumbersome than might at first appear, as drain and source are reversible.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.