There's always an excuse for not trusting your ears and insisting on peeking. Now it's, "Oh noes, there's opamps in somebody's test! Somebody told me that!"
Fortunately, this faith-based attitude hasn't made any impact (other than amusement and annoyance) to the serious people who are actually advancing sound reproduction.
Now, we're not ones to go round spreadin' rumors
Why really, we're just not the gossipy kind!
Oh, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip!
Why really, we're just not the gossipy kind!
Oh, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip!
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time.
John Curl said that ABX is faulty
They're full of OpAmps that's well known
But he's always peekin while listening
Instead of relying upon his ears alone.
John Curl said that ABX is faulty
They're full of OpAmps that's well known
But he's always peekin while listening
Instead of relying upon his ears alone.
Apologies to Hee Haw
Well, I don't know what else to say. I found the same problem that I just alluded to with an early double blind test of a phono stage designed by Walt Jung. Dr's Lipshitz and VDKoi did the test. They used a standard DYNA solid state phono and compared it to the Jung phono preamp, which, by the way, had a VERY ACCURATE RIAA curve, better than the Dyna. So they had to add equalization to match the two phono outputs. Now which phono did they equalize? They equalized the Jung phono preamp, NOT the Dyna, with a Dyna graphic equalizer.
This is 'scientific'? I mean, to potentially 'corrupt' the DUT with another stage of active equalization, rather than putting the EQ on the reference, which IF the Dyna EQ was NOT perfect, would give the Jung phono stage, that was designed to be even more 'accurate' than the Dyna, a chance to be detected, even in an ABX test. But NO, they chose to compromise the Jung phono, because that way they could be more sure of their NULL result. Now this was 35 years ago. You would hope that the ABX'ers would have learned, by now, to not add extra active circuits in series with the DUT, but would put them in the 'reference', but apparently they have not.
Now what is my true stand on these things? I agree that double blind tests do make it difficult to hear subtle differences. I put that in writing 35 years ago, as well. But, I did find that improving the test, by using the best contacts, wire, etc, made it easier to hear subtle differences, even though it was an effort that I would still prefer to avoid.
Now, my job in life is to make audio equipment, at various levels of sophistication. So, I might make a phono stage for $2200 retail, and at the same time design a phono stage that sells at $27,500 retail, and several models in between. What matters to me is that they are the best that I can do with what I have available. If I have more design freedom available, I attempt to build it within the limits of what I am allowed. For the record, the mark-up at any price point is essentially the same, due to established formulas for dealer percentage, and company profits. Nobody is getting rich here.
Now, if those of you think that even $2200 is too much, and you are perfect with something that you got for $220 or so, well be happy that you can't tell the difference, and enjoy your records with it, but don't attempt to tell me what I can hear, because I can hear the sound differences between all my designs, much less other products. I guess I am just special! '-)
This is 'scientific'? I mean, to potentially 'corrupt' the DUT with another stage of active equalization, rather than putting the EQ on the reference, which IF the Dyna EQ was NOT perfect, would give the Jung phono stage, that was designed to be even more 'accurate' than the Dyna, a chance to be detected, even in an ABX test. But NO, they chose to compromise the Jung phono, because that way they could be more sure of their NULL result. Now this was 35 years ago. You would hope that the ABX'ers would have learned, by now, to not add extra active circuits in series with the DUT, but would put them in the 'reference', but apparently they have not.
Now what is my true stand on these things? I agree that double blind tests do make it difficult to hear subtle differences. I put that in writing 35 years ago, as well. But, I did find that improving the test, by using the best contacts, wire, etc, made it easier to hear subtle differences, even though it was an effort that I would still prefer to avoid.
Now, my job in life is to make audio equipment, at various levels of sophistication. So, I might make a phono stage for $2200 retail, and at the same time design a phono stage that sells at $27,500 retail, and several models in between. What matters to me is that they are the best that I can do with what I have available. If I have more design freedom available, I attempt to build it within the limits of what I am allowed. For the record, the mark-up at any price point is essentially the same, due to established formulas for dealer percentage, and company profits. Nobody is getting rich here.
Now, if those of you think that even $2200 is too much, and you are perfect with something that you got for $220 or so, well be happy that you can't tell the difference, and enjoy your records with it, but don't attempt to tell me what I can hear, because I can hear the sound differences between all my designs, much less other products. I guess I am just special! '-)
Yes, we get it, ears-only testing doesn't sell the particular stuff that you make, since you're still "working" on problems that were solved decades ago.
Yes, we understand that you're either unfamiliar with or deliberately don't want to mention the myriad of methods used in ears-only testing (and since several of those have been discussed here, it's likely the latter).
Yes, we understand that researchers who are actually advancing the art are well-aware of and routinely utilize real auditory test methods, but these are not applicable to fashion.
Yes, we understand that you're either unfamiliar with or deliberately don't want to mention the myriad of methods used in ears-only testing (and since several of those have been discussed here, it's likely the latter).
Yes, we understand that researchers who are actually advancing the art are well-aware of and routinely utilize real auditory test methods, but these are not applicable to fashion.
So you make products that are audibly different? Doesn't that show that you don't know how to design very well?
How do they measure? Let's see some comparisons between the low and high end products, Mr Special.
It begs the question what exactly is the major differences between lower cost audio gear, not consumer junk, but what we would consider and high end equipment? Is it just that you can use higher cost electrical components, though this would seem to not be that significant a cost differential between one component or another, or is it the use of unobtainium legacy devices such as discreet transistors? Yes the amount spent on such things as machined cases would add to the cost, are we saying that the high dollar components are that different in topology that that alone would account for the huge price differential?
What JC does not point out is that several very expensive >20K$ pre-amps are all IC in the signal path but use the same extremes in build quality and get A class reviews. So what does matter?
So I take it that you don't have any measurements to show us, no surprise there.
Well of course YOU can hear a difference, you just proved it by stating it is thus
So tell us how low a S/N ratio can you hear? What about distortion? Is that THD or IMD or some other type?
No, we can measure things we cannot hear but the only sounds we cannot measure that we can "hear" are the voices and delusions in our brains.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.