JA, is John At.. Mm, nope.
JC, is John Cu.. Mm, nope.
JD, is Jan Di..... Mm. nope.
JN, is John Neu.. Mm, nope.
JR, is..you know. Mm, nope.
JW, John Wat..... Mm, nope.
Aah, Jimmy James Johnston with the casual D.
PowerPoint Presentations from recent (or not so recent) meetings.
Catch up, you fresh BT reader lot !
In truth, I do not know why I should be part of a double blind test. I have previously participated in them and found that others were better at it than me, even with the best switching and reproduction equipment. I 'turn off' almost immediately, and everything sounds similar.
I personally make no extraordinary claims about the Blowtorch preamp. Listening comparisons made across the world have made it stand out, sonically. That is what it was made for. Not a work of art, or a feat of low distortion measurement, just something to win listening contests. It has done its primary purpose well, the biggest problem has been Ayre, who goes even farther in design and manufacturing precision, and of course, some super good tube designs. That's all I claim.
I personally make no extraordinary claims about the Blowtorch preamp. Listening comparisons made across the world have made it stand out, sonically. That is what it was made for. Not a work of art, or a feat of low distortion measurement, just something to win listening contests. It has done its primary purpose well, the biggest problem has been Ayre, who goes even farther in design and manufacturing precision, and of course, some super good tube designs. That's all I claim.
First, you are welcome to call me Josh or any other nick name.
Second, I can evaluate the sound quality of any amp on good speakers, like mine, even when they are not very efficient. Of course, evaluate according to my own taste and preferences.
There is a special case with SET amps, that by their nature distort heavily on relatively high power levels. Thus, those amps will perform well, without distorting on loud passages, only on very efficient loudspeaker, which are the minority of high quality speakers produced.
I referred nowhere to YOUR beliefs as being religious.
Anyhow, beliefs about reality and reality-in-itself are two separate things.
Even though the ears-brain-mind is involved in appreciation of music, both live and reproduced music – the reality of music appreciation is what it is, aside what one may believe about it.
Not all accepted explanations are necessarily true and complete.
There were times when the accepted explanation was that the universe revolves around the planet earth.
AFAIK, a claim that science today knows all there is to know about music appreciation is presumptuous.
Yes. JJ is trying to determine general audibility thresholds for certain phenomena. I am testing a specific claim by a specific individual in a specific context. Very different things.
no prob, i enjoy fooling around (most of the time) and some folks might find it helpfull.
Mr Johnston is in his late 50s at the moment, afaih, so "retired old" sounds like my kind of humor.
Jakob,
Are you suggesting that John Curl (to whom SY's proposal was directed), with his 40+ years of critical listening behind his belt, should need a special training course before he could participate in a DB test?
jd
Yes. Apparently you must train someone how to hear that which they're already claiming to hear.
"This cable definitely has more high end extension and and a cleaner midrange."
"No no. You're not doing it right. Here, let me show you..."
se
A careful experimenter is using controls and pretests to answer a question like this.
As John Curl has pointed out that he in the past felt distracted by the double blind test protocols i think it is safe to conclude that he does not have 40+ years of critical listening under blind test conditions behind his belt.
That may sound offensive but is in no way meant so.
Your underlying assumption is that listening under test conditions is exactly the same as listening sighted. Although that may sound reasonable on a first glance it is just a claim that has to be investigated/verified.
One step in this direction is the incorporation of positive and negative controls.
Everything else is prone to experimenter (confirmation) bias. One of the most dangerous parts in testing.
Last edited:
"No no. You're not doing it right. Here, let me show you..."
se
Isn´t that exactly what everybody does by insisting that a blind test should have been done instead of..... ?
A careful experimenter is using controls and pretests to answer a question like this.
As John Curl has pointed out that he in the past felt distracted by the double blind test protocols i think it is safe to conclude that he does not have 40+ years of critical listening under blind test conditions behind his belt.
That may sound offensive but is in no way meant so.
Your underlying assumption is that listening under test conditions is exactly the same as listening sighted. Although that may sound reasonable on a first glance it is just a claim that has to be investigated/verified.
One step in this direction is the incorporation of positive and negative controls.
Everything else is prone to experimenter (confirmation) bias. One of the most dangerous parts in testing.
Jakob,
I do agree with you; critical listening under DB conditions most probably needs some special training or focus or introspection, whatever you want to call it. Sighted listening runs on a kind of autopilot, it's what you've been doing all your life, it's a natural process for your brain to incorporate what you hear, what you feel, what you know about the DUTs, what you know about what they cost, how your peers rate them etc into a final opinion. Now all of a sudden your brain has to get used to form this opinion with just ONE sense instead of 6 or more. Definitely needs preparation & building up experience!
jd
Isn´t that exactly what everybody does by insisting that a blind test should have been done instead of..... ?
Only if you insist that your opinion has some value over and above being your PERSONAL opinion. As long as you agree your personal opinion is just that, probably nobody would care how you arrived at that opinion, even if you only consulted your toenails for it.
However, as soon as you start stating that it is a fact that amp x sounds so much difference from amp y because you yourself heard the difference, you would convince a lot more of us if you heard it in a statistically relevant, well-controlled and repeatable test.
jd
As I wrote earlier, I've done a number of blind listening tests (not knowing the brand names of the setup components, their cost, reputation and previous reviews). I could pin point the sound signature and sound quality of those setups. There was no need for double blind tests.
My feeling is that DB tests are being demanded by those people who don't trust their ears, or aren't aware of the possibility to trust their ears.
Appreciation of music, live and reproduced, is a very personal matter.
Therefore, any appreciation of any piece of gear used in a stereo setup can only be personal.
In spite of the above, there are some things which are typical, or common to groups of gear. For instance, highly increased details and microdyanamics, especially in the mid frequencies, is typical to vary many SET amps. Some may like it, while others may distaste it, however, it is there as a fact.
no prob, i enjoy fooling around (most of the time) and some folks might find it helpfull.
Mr Johnston is in his late 50s at the moment, afaih, so "retired old" sounds like my kind of humor.
MID 50's please!
Sy,
Suppose I had JJ stop by my place and I set up a system with a switch in it to reverse the line level interconnect direction. If he would state that he could hear a difference and was satisfied with the demonstration being accurate, would that count as much as a more formal test? What effect would that have on your opinions?
ES
- Status
- Not open for further replies.