Re: Re: Resistor Sound - How is this possible???
It is surprising the degree of improvement that is available through "passive" components. One thing is certain -- we'll never run out of ways to improve audio products!
PS -- I say ignore all those postings that presume the differences are only in your head. Perhaps it is those posters themselves that are only figments.... [/B][/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------
One has to, or there will not be progress. It is the closed minds that intrigues me.
The reason for the post is that I have not previously encountered such a big change over a short period. Other Bulk Foil resistors I have come across do not 'burn in' like the Sfernice.
It is surprising the degree of improvement that is available through "passive" components. One thing is certain -- we'll never run out of ways to improve audio products!
PS -- I say ignore all those postings that presume the differences are only in your head. Perhaps it is those posters themselves that are only figments.... [/B][/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------
One has to, or there will not be progress. It is the closed minds that intrigues me.
The reason for the post is that I have not previously encountered such a big change over a short period. Other Bulk Foil resistors I have come across do not 'burn in' like the Sfernice.
Re: Re: Re: Resistor Sound - How is this possible???
Which is the closed mind? That which considers all reasonable possibilities or that which resigns itself to just one?
How exactly are you defining an open mind? In my Webster's Ninth Collegiate, I have:
open-minded : receptive to arguments or ideas : IMPARTIAL
Thus far you seem to be quite dismissive rather than receptive. Thus far I've dismissed nothing.
So again, which is the closed mind here?
But in the very topic of your post you ask "How is this possible?" Were you expecting some possible answers to this question or was it merely rhetorical?
se
fmak said:
Which is the closed mind? That which considers all reasonable possibilities or that which resigns itself to just one?
How exactly are you defining an open mind? In my Webster's Ninth Collegiate, I have:
open-minded : receptive to arguments or ideas : IMPARTIAL
Thus far you seem to be quite dismissive rather than receptive. Thus far I've dismissed nothing.
So again, which is the closed mind here?
But in the very topic of your post you ask "How is this possible?" Were you expecting some possible answers to this question or was it merely rhetorical?
se
Scopehea.... I would like you to think that they are super good sounding magical resistors as other Caddocks seem to be regarded. But I guess my question is also, are they worse for low voltage use because they are called highvoltage? I would be using them in that buffered tube gainclone which is onlty about 32 volts........scopehead scopehead scopehe....
It always makes me shake my head to hear a subjectivist accuse an objectivist of having a closed mind! Aren't the subjectivists the ones that claim a double-blind, level matched test is flawed when they can't reliably detect a difference? A double-blind test is truly a test to get down to one variable, but they can't accept that their golden ears can be wrong! It MUST be flawed test! Now THAT'S open mindedness for you. If you can't make a reliable difference judgement in a properly performed test, it's time to move on to another component, dudes.
Similarly, they make one substitution in a hi-fi chain, and claim it's only changing one variable. For example, they change one speaker to another more accurate and revealing speaker, and the sound sucks. They then say the speaker sucks. Instead, the speaker may be revealing previously undetectable grunge from the electronics. One variable thinking again.... While this paragraph may sound contrary to the previous paragraph, the test in the first paragraph is not trying to find out which is better or why it is better. It is simply to detect whether or not there IS a difference.
Objectivists at least are generally trained to deal with multiple variables, and trained to eliminate variables (e.g., double-blind, level-matched tests, etc.) to find a cause/effect. Subjectivists, on the other hand, don't seem to understand the concept at all; and they abhor tests that narrow down the variables, mixing and switching components until they happen upon a sound they like. Then when they find the sound they like, they MAKE UP a reason for the "improvement", instead of trying to find a true, objective reason for it.
Yes, the above is a gross generalization, and will certainly subject me to flame wars--but I don't care. Listening is truely important, but so is succoming to the realization that ears aren't infallable. There are closed-minded objectivists as well as closed-minded subjectivists. But being gullible and open-minded are not the same thing! A subjectivist calls an objectivist close-minded if the objectivist doesn't believe the subjectivist heard a "major" difference between listening tests three months apart! Pleeeeeze! An objectivist simply wants a reasonable degree of proof for such outlandish conclusions. A subjectivist insists that the objectivist proove the outlandish statements wrong. Pleeeeze! Every hear the one about prooving a negative?
Bashing the concept of a double-blind, level-matched test for the typical reasons is ridiculous. There is no rule in such testing that limits your time spent listening to A or B, forcing you to listen in "stressful" conditions, etc. Making up reasons for no detectable difference is just as unconvincing, and closed minded, as making up reasons for a "detectable" difference!
pooge said:
I don't see this as an objectivist vs. subjectivist or subjectivist vs. objectivist schism. That rather presupposes that one is either wholly subjectivist in all things or wholly objectivist in all things.
Myself, I'm both subjectivist and objectivist. When it comes to the enjoyment of listening to music, trying different things in my audio system and deciding what I like and don't like, what I prefer and don't prefer, I'm wholly subjective. When it comes to understanding what's actually going on beneath all of that, I'm wholly objective.
So to me, it's not a matter of being one or the other, but rather keeping each within its propper context.
The problem as I see it is when one takes their subjective experience and asserts it as objective reality but expect their assertions to be accepted without question or challenge.
Can't have it both ways. One can't cross over to the objective side of the road and expect to enjoy the same immunity of proof that they enjoy on the subjective side of the road.
se
Pooge
You seem to miss the point here: generally subjectivists try for what pleases the ear: no more and no less. It really doesn't matter if the ear is right or wrong; for the subjectivist the ear is GOD. And generally the objectivists are these same people, with the same training and ability to analyse but minus the ears. I swear to god, if i was deaf i'd become the most annoying objectivist of them all. As i have the scientific training i'd use it to full advantage in debunking myths and delusions. Well, this also requires a messianic state of mind which i sadly lack. So, cursed as i am, with a pair of reasonably functional ears i have little choice but build a system in a way my ears like it. Do i need to audition every change a few times? By all means, and it's annoying, tiresome and very time consuming, but there is no alternative. Do i need to DBT every change? Don't be ridiculous, life's too short for that.
cheers
You seem to miss the point here: generally subjectivists try for what pleases the ear: no more and no less. It really doesn't matter if the ear is right or wrong; for the subjectivist the ear is GOD. And generally the objectivists are these same people, with the same training and ability to analyse but minus the ears. I swear to god, if i was deaf i'd become the most annoying objectivist of them all. As i have the scientific training i'd use it to full advantage in debunking myths and delusions. Well, this also requires a messianic state of mind which i sadly lack. So, cursed as i am, with a pair of reasonably functional ears i have little choice but build a system in a way my ears like it. Do i need to audition every change a few times? By all means, and it's annoying, tiresome and very time consuming, but there is no alternative. Do i need to DBT every change? Don't be ridiculous, life's too short for that.
cheers
analog_sa said:
And that's as it should be with regard to subjectivism. But that's not always how it is. You say that to the subjectivist it really doesn't matter if the ear is right or wrong yet many of those you'd likely refer to as subjectivists routinely assert and insist that the ear (or at least their ears) are right and that there's simply no question about it.
So clearly to many it does matter. And given some of the forceful arguments I've seen from them, it matters quite a lot. But if one is making objective claims, i.e. that the ears are right, how can such a person be considered subjectivist?
To me, a subjectivist is as you describe above. Someone who doesn't know and doesn't care. They're only concerned with their own subjective enjoyment of audio. And to that end, they don't attempt to assert their subjective experience as being anything more than their subjective experience.
While many that you would perhaps call objectivists don't perceive the differences that those you'd call subjectivists perceive, I don't see what the ears have to do with objectivism.
To me, objectivism is simply expecting objective proof in support of objective claims. I perceive differences myself. But I expect objective claims to be supported with objective proof. And I don't consider even my subjective experiences to constitute absolute proof of any particular objective reality. Which is why I never make any objective claims based on my subjective experiences.
Bottom line, if one makes an objective claim, they should expect to support it with objective evidence, not subjective anecdotes. Otherwise, don't make any objective claims in the first place and be content with your subjective experiences.
That's been my approach and it's worked well for me.
I still don't see what ears have to do with anything. I'd expect any rational person, deaf or otherwise, to expect that objective claims be supported with objective evidence.
As you should, unless you're out to prove some objective reality or other. Just remain subjectivist in that regard.
You don't NEED to. You can if you choose to. You can take whatever approach you want as a subjectivist and no one else may rightfully question or challenge whatever approach you may choose to take.
Nope. Demands of DBTs are only rightfully made when challenging objective claims. As long as you remain subjectivist and make no objective claims, no such demand may rightfully be made of you and anyone who does, you can rightfully tell them to kiss your ****.
se
Steve, I agree with what you are saying. It is an open-minded attitude, especially if it is accepted that everyone's ears require training. What is pleasing may not be accurate, and vice versa. A bad sounding amp may, in fact, be accurately and naturally revealing a crappy recording. Sooo many variables. It would be unfair and to blame the amplifier as bad sounding.
analog, you reiterated my point. Subjectivists think their ear is GOD, yet they accuse objectivists of being closed-minded. I used DBT only as an example. A simple side-by-side, level matched test shouldn't pose a problem, should it? Yet, many tweekers serially listen to their rig, turn it off, take it down the basement, desolder a part, solder in a new one, plug it back into their rig a couple of hours later, and declare a difference, good or bad. They start a myth about the revelation on the internet, and call anyone that is not gullible enough to accept the myth as closed minded. Rather than even prove there is a difference, they demand that others prove they didn't hear a difference! If they like the sound of their rig, fine. But to call someone else closed minded because they don't buy unverifiable allegations derived from an invalid test...well, that get's my goat! That's my beef.
analog, you reiterated my point. Subjectivists think their ear is GOD, yet they accuse objectivists of being closed-minded. I used DBT only as an example. A simple side-by-side, level matched test shouldn't pose a problem, should it? Yet, many tweekers serially listen to their rig, turn it off, take it down the basement, desolder a part, solder in a new one, plug it back into their rig a couple of hours later, and declare a difference, good or bad. They start a myth about the revelation on the internet, and call anyone that is not gullible enough to accept the myth as closed minded. Rather than even prove there is a difference, they demand that others prove they didn't hear a difference! If they like the sound of their rig, fine. But to call someone else closed minded because they don't buy unverifiable allegations derived from an invalid test...well, that get's my goat! That's my beef.
Component Break-in
This was controversial.......... maybe about 5 years ago. Where have you people been?
http://www.ayre.com/products/ibe.htm
http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=APURISTENH
http://www.thoraudio.com/prod_burnin.html
http://www.testdisc.umsebiz.com/main.php3?primNavIndex=1&
http://www.referencerecordings.com/SAMPLE.HTML
You may now return to to your SOB* story.
* Subjectivist OBjectivist
This was controversial.......... maybe about 5 years ago. Where have you people been?
http://www.ayre.com/products/ibe.htm
http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=APURISTENH
http://www.thoraudio.com/prod_burnin.html
http://www.testdisc.umsebiz.com/main.php3?primNavIndex=1&
http://www.referencerecordings.com/SAMPLE.HTML
You may now return to to your SOB* story.
* Subjectivist OBjectivist
Hi,
Is there a difference, yes or no?
How hard can it be?
If I take two MKP caps with the exact same value from two different manufacturers would there be a good chance that they won't sound the same?
One of them may be preferred in MY SYSTEM TO MY EARS but that's about all I can say about it....
If afterwards that brand-x component gets itself a following for good sonics then so be it.
Back to the original topic: fmak only expressed his surprise when he noticed the long time the Sfernice resistor took to settle in....
Some of us may be familiar with a brand of caps that takes months to settle in, so what's the big deal?
From experience most resistors makes I tried so far didn't take more than a day or so to run in, hence fmaks' surprise at the longer than expected run in time of the Sfernices...
That's a completely subjective experience ( one of probably) reporting an observation.
If a few hundred of other people report the same experience it can safely be accepted as an objective observation... unless we all take the same dope?
Cheers,
/ "Stop banging the damn Sfernice" ( Sean Paul).
Is there a difference, yes or no?
How hard can it be?
If I take two MKP caps with the exact same value from two different manufacturers would there be a good chance that they won't sound the same?
One of them may be preferred in MY SYSTEM TO MY EARS but that's about all I can say about it....
If afterwards that brand-x component gets itself a following for good sonics then so be it.
Back to the original topic: fmak only expressed his surprise when he noticed the long time the Sfernice resistor took to settle in....
Some of us may be familiar with a brand of caps that takes months to settle in, so what's the big deal?
From experience most resistors makes I tried so far didn't take more than a day or so to run in, hence fmaks' surprise at the longer than expected run in time of the Sfernices...
That's a completely subjective experience ( one of probably) reporting an observation.
If a few hundred of other people report the same experience it can safely be accepted as an objective observation... unless we all take the same dope?
Cheers,
/ "Stop banging the damn Sfernice" ( Sean Paul).
I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes reading this thread!
I hoped to learn something about high quality resistors, but endured yet another pointless, uninteresting debate about subjectivism vs. objectivism. We'll all do what we want, how we want, and believe what we want, and we can never know it all. I will carry on tweaking and believing I hear things (without investing in superflous testing equipment, and my time) because it makes me happy!! (because my CDs sound fantastic)
Now, maybe an objectivist/scope-head with good technical knowledge could explain the differences in materials and construction of different resistors, and relate this to why they can a) sound different, and b) take different lengths of time to burn in...
-Simon
ps, I know it's not the same component, but I use some caps in my speakers that changed masses with time - blatantly obvious.
I hoped to learn something about high quality resistors, but endured yet another pointless, uninteresting debate about subjectivism vs. objectivism. We'll all do what we want, how we want, and believe what we want, and we can never know it all. I will carry on tweaking and believing I hear things (without investing in superflous testing equipment, and my time) because it makes me happy!! (because my CDs sound fantastic)
Now, maybe an objectivist/scope-head with good technical knowledge could explain the differences in materials and construction of different resistors, and relate this to why they can a) sound different, and b) take different lengths of time to burn in...
-Simon
ps, I know it's not the same component, but I use some caps in my speakers that changed masses with time - blatantly obvious.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.