John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, did you try the simple demonstration I suggested?

May i remind you of various description of single and double blind controlled listening tests i´ve posted on diyaudio in the recent years?
Measurements showed that the differences between DUTs were small indeed.

I´ve started with controlled listening tests back in the beginning of the 80s after reading an article from Shanefield about the need for controlled testing.

The last experiment tried to explore the ability to match levels in consecutive trials using real world music and the normal time span needed to fade out, switching the interconnects to another unit, restarting a cd-player and fade in while trying to approximate the level of the former trial.
Time span was 20 - 25s, level accuracy was from 0.3dB - 0.8dB in 15 trials.

No, they did Carver's evaluation ears-only. Their "normal" method is to have no controls whatsoever.

edit: My apologies- this particular link was to their uncontrolled test.

Did they do another carver challenge with controlled listening tests?

"I am fine with believes as long as they are expressed as such.
But believes don´t really fit in the scientific framework."

Jakob, you are just plain argumentative or a troll.

Are you a trained psychologist?

I think the whole point I've been stressing is that any claims made about differences in sound need to be substantiated, and especially so when the effects are small.

<snip>

It was in no way meant offensive.
As i do have some experience in performing and conducting controlled listening tests wrt to small effects, your description of weak memory did simply not fit to my experience.

No, i am not a trained psychologist, but sensory testing is part of my life.
And i have read literally hundreds of publications about auditory memory but have never seen a publication that confirms the assertion.
Beside the fact that research and understanding isn´t complete yet, i´d say (as mentioned before), that at least some studies lead to other impressions, see for example the description of experiment 1:
Christian Kaernbach; The Memory of Noise; Experimental Psychology 2004; Vol. 51(4): 240Ð248
http://www.uni-kiel.de/psychologie/emotion/team/kaernbach/publications/2004_kae_exppsy.pdf

or

Agus,Thorpe, Pressnitzer; Rapid Formation of Robust Auditory Memories:
Insights from Noise; Neuron; Volume 66, Issue 4, p610–618, 27 May 2010
http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(10)00285-0
 
Who cares, if you can hear differences, then that is the reality that is practical and useful. Whether you can be 'fooled' by psychologists is something else entirely.

That's rather a non-sequitur. First step is to demonstrate that you are hearing a claimed difference. Psychologists have nothing to do with that. Psychology does, which is why it's important to actually use one's ears if one is concerned with reality rather than promotion.
 
My introduction to this website was from Charles Hansen, who THEN found it informative. He, I take seriously, because he is a consistent contender in the hi fi ratings that many other designers do as well. Where is he now? Still out there, but not contributing here, for good reason.
He sent me a few myrtle blocks. Do they help? Probably, but you have to have your system calibrated in advance to make that decision. They work for him, so he offered them to others. OF COURSE they cost something to buy, BUT he said that similar blocks that you can get from a toy store is nearly as good. He doesn't need your money, but he has to cover his expenses in offering such a tweak to people who want to try it as well.

YBA, both the man and his products are another excellent example of quality audio design. He has credentials too, teaching engineering, consulting on the wiring for French fighter planes, and I have even heard his personal system in his home just outside of Paris. He is a true competitor. He does audio, like I do, for the love of it.
 
Who cares, if you can hear differences, then that is the reality that is practical and useful.

I don't think anyone doubts that you hear differences. The question is, are the differences you hear coming from outside (from the system and the room) or from inside (from your mind)? It would seem to be important to sort this out in order to make real improvements to a system; and it ought to be possible.
 
My reality is often shared by others. That is why I get good reviews. It is the same for Nelson Pass or Charles Hansen or even YBA. This is what we do, we try to design 'inspired' products that are above and beyond just another engineering assignment. That is why so many, otherwise competent, engineers fail to make it when it comes to subjective appraisal of their efforts outside their own family and friends.
 
Of course we get paid! We have to pay the rent somehow. We just decided to put our time and effort into audio, full time. What is the problem? Except to imply that we can't do something in audio, without being 'compromised' by earning a 'very poor' living from it.
You want to talk about 'promotion'? What do you think Bob Carver was doing with these tests of his. His Phase Linear power amps had lots of Xover distortion, and Mark Levinson and I could hear it, perhaps not immediately, but with me rebiasing Mark's Phase Linear 700's for LESS xover distortion. It was almost a night and day change in the sound balance.
Mark and I were not initially disturbed by it, but his Mother complained that Mark's new system sounded 'wrong'. That is why I went in to adjust the xover distortion, and then most of the subjective highs went away showing that the speaker manufacturer lied about the true frequency response of the speakers. Mark HAD to add a tweeter to make it sound balanced. So much for the inaudibility of xover distortion.
 
This is interesting - we often hear/see it stated that sine wave testing of amps can make distortions go unnoticed, because it is not music; music is much more complex, and it is music we listen to.
However, what is stated above seems to point out that sine wave tests are much move sensitive than music tests. Hmmm.
Jan

Yes, well, IF the pack is going to hare off in that direction it would do well to remember that non-linear distortion is masked with increasing SPL.:eek:

And linear phenomena are UN-masked by increasing SPL.:eek::eek:

It might pay to visit GedLee LLC as he has published recent work on distortion perception.

The Holt article JC posted is here The Great Distortion Delusion | Stereophile.com

What is the average SPL at which we listen to recorded music?

Why does choral music make so many sound systems sound like shite?
 
No question that test signals will be most useful for determining JND; certainly when I was playing with audibility of polarity, I could generate test signals that would give me significant results ears-only, but I could never consistently do that with music. I think that I'd want to see some data that somehow listener sensitivity to crossover distortion on program material (assuming a good listener who can detect the differences on test signals) increases with "experience." And if so, by how much? I suspect (and I emphasize that word!) that it will still be much higher than can be detected on sine waves.
Try spoken word recordings on a single FR speaker...if you can't get that correct 100% of the time you have cloth ears.
Things get more complex with multiway speakers due to crossover phase disturbances.
Music on multiway speakers depends what kind of music....orchestral should be same result as voice.
With pop music don't expect all mics/sources to be same polarity, and don't expect all tracks on an album to be same polarity.
Often the top 40 release single will be inverted wrt the rest of the album, probably likely due to mastering in a different facility.

Dan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.