Maybe they have, but most people imagine their ears to be too special for the measurements.
Hence the double blind test which virtually no one here has experienced. It takes so long to do (and is so unpleasant really), that even if we had an audio testing lab and staff in our house, we could only objectively test a fraction of the supposed differences we all claim to hear.
at last!
we attempted some sort of level matched, time synced ABX (single blind) when we did the comparisons I mentioned some weeks ago.
and, boy, is it tedious and frustrating.
if I were to devise such a procedure (actually, an official document from ITU exists), I'm not sure I'd ever manage to accomplish it, unless I'm paid to do it or there's some type of financial interest involved.
1. I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> therefore my ears are more sensitive than measurements -> carry on developing new audio excellence using my ears only.
OR
2. I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> therefore I probably imagined it -> carry on developing new audio excellence using existing measurements only.
OR
3. I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> question whether existing tests prove it beyond all reasonable dount (use DBT?) -> if not, try to develop tests that prove there is or isn't a difference.
I don't see much evidence of (3). Is that because:
- the meter-readers believe that existing tests really are adequate to measure sound quality? (maybe combined with a priori knowledge of how things work)
- people have simply given up because it's too hard?
- people are happy with their cosy world of circular audio chat, mutual congratulation, tweaking and tinkering?
OR
2. I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> therefore I probably imagined it -> carry on developing new audio excellence using existing measurements only.
OR
3. I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> question whether existing tests prove it beyond all reasonable dount (use DBT?) -> if not, try to develop tests that prove there is or isn't a difference.
I don't see much evidence of (3). Is that because:
- the meter-readers believe that existing tests really are adequate to measure sound quality? (maybe combined with a priori knowledge of how things work)
- people have simply given up because it's too hard?
- people are happy with their cosy world of circular audio chat, mutual congratulation, tweaking and tinkering?
That would be the beauty of objective hardware testing - it bypasses the difficulty, expense and tedium of listening tests. If the hardware testing were validated by a limited number of listening tests, we could just rely on the hardware tests and stop all this anecdotal nonsense. But it ain't gonna happen.
Please show me by quote where I said anything about anyone's training.
What did you think 35+ years old capacitor would measure like, just as new? Never mind the extent of their drop, you should have known that after 35+ years capacitors are morst probably going to show some signs of age.
A very flimsy "explanation", CopperTop.
You left out 4 and 5.
4) I believe I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> I set up a simple level-matched blind test to see if it's worth pursuing or if I'm likely imagining things -> Simple level-matched blind test forces me to accept that the differences were illusory.
5) 4) I believe I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> I set up a simple level-matched blind test to see if it's worth pursuing or if I'm likely imagining things -> Simple level-matched blind test seems to show the same difference I thought I heard when peeking -> I figure out what obvious mistake I made in my measurement, then fix the issue.
4) I believe I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> I set up a simple level-matched blind test to see if it's worth pursuing or if I'm likely imagining things -> Simple level-matched blind test forces me to accept that the differences were illusory.
5) 4) I believe I hear a difference -> but measurements say there's no difference -> I set up a simple level-matched blind test to see if it's worth pursuing or if I'm likely imagining things -> Simple level-matched blind test seems to show the same difference I thought I heard when peeking -> I figure out what obvious mistake I made in my measurement, then fix the issue.
CopperTop, you seem to be in pursuit of some absolute truth. I am not, I am in search only of something the sound of which I will like, and I don't give a hoot if somebody else doesn't like it.
I neither need nor care for a consensus of people agreeing that unit A is the best in the group; not saying it's bad or anything, it's just that I have checked out a fair number of such blind test panel devices and discovered that in most cases, we are not of the same opinion.
Over the years, I have discovered that Mr Alvin Gold and Mr Paul Messenger's conclusions and recommendation agree very closely with what I hear, by a factor of at least 8/10. I have checked and found that I personally can generally rely on their conclusions, the differences being mainly in the shades and nuances, not in the essence. Others may disagree.
And that's all there is to it. I have nothing to argue aside for the false assumption that everything is measureable and explainable by measurement, while not for a second denying that measurements are very valuable roadsigns on the journey to quality sound.
I neither need nor care for a consensus of people agreeing that unit A is the best in the group; not saying it's bad or anything, it's just that I have checked out a fair number of such blind test panel devices and discovered that in most cases, we are not of the same opinion.
Over the years, I have discovered that Mr Alvin Gold and Mr Paul Messenger's conclusions and recommendation agree very closely with what I hear, by a factor of at least 8/10. I have checked and found that I personally can generally rely on their conclusions, the differences being mainly in the shades and nuances, not in the essence. Others may disagree.
And that's all there is to it. I have nothing to argue aside for the false assumption that everything is measureable and explainable by measurement, while not for a second denying that measurements are very valuable roadsigns on the journey to quality sound.
there are, IMO, a few issues at play.
1. part of the harm is done by the audio press. I'm not calling them liars but IMO the moment one gets seriously involved in the high-end business, politics start to count. until we reach the Utopian society, stating a truth loud and clear does you no good. it's how it works and no-one can change that.
2. some of the high end guys (not all, mind you) raised themselves on pedestals. it must feel good there and anyone who threatens that position is an enemy. audio is art, audio designers are artists. you could go further with my comments but I'm sure they would be misinterpreted so...
3. money. no, I'm not naive to think one can get rich from audio high-end (actually it's the dealers who are/get rich) but as long as money is involved...
4. too many extremists in each camp (objective/subjective) makes reconciliation impossible.
5. some high-end guys don't have a serious engineering background. some aren't even graduated engineers. no, I'm not overestimating the importance of formal training but neither should anyone underestimate it. as long as the raw material (brains, that is) is there, school gives you a bigger picture on things. if it narrows it, it's mostly a matter of the raw material not being there in the first place. some people don't have that bigger picture (because of either reason). and the saying that the less you know, the more you think you know does apply. an engineer may not be an expert in control theory but at least he has an idea on the complexity of the issue.
There is one slight problem with blind tests , they often cause a feeling of unease in people which colours their judgement as much as prejudice would . Not me because I feel no shame in being wrong .
One thing I was told is if a truly identical thing is played twice the second time sounds brighter , more open and often better . This is easy to explain . The ear and brain have recorded the information and build a bigger picture the second time . Eventually boredom sets in making something worse .
Another weird thing is this . If something sounds harsh turn the treble up . It usually sounds less harsh . Reason is often a slightly lower volume is used if so . Harshness and brightness are associated in the mind .
My point of view is like a glass half full or glass half empty . My general optimism about life is that a thing is always half full . A rational improvement in a component which might be berried in the feedback loop will in my optimism be better . Someone told me the other day I am an unusually happy person . I suspect the person was being highly critical ?
Here is a book whose title I wish I had thought of .
Jeanette Winterson - Books - Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal
One thing I was told is if a truly identical thing is played twice the second time sounds brighter , more open and often better . This is easy to explain . The ear and brain have recorded the information and build a bigger picture the second time . Eventually boredom sets in making something worse .
Another weird thing is this . If something sounds harsh turn the treble up . It usually sounds less harsh . Reason is often a slightly lower volume is used if so . Harshness and brightness are associated in the mind .
My point of view is like a glass half full or glass half empty . My general optimism about life is that a thing is always half full . A rational improvement in a component which might be berried in the feedback loop will in my optimism be better . Someone told me the other day I am an unusually happy person . I suspect the person was being highly critical ?
Here is a book whose title I wish I had thought of .
Jeanette Winterson - Books - Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal
I happen to agree with what you wrote.
but... isn't non-blind evaluation just another sort of evaluation in its own? is it inherently superior because a magazine told us so?
say that I could prove to you with brain scans and whatnot that sighted evaluation is biased, would you acknowledge that problem?
do you not agree that, given certain effort, an evaluation procedure free of the problems you listed (which are real) could be devised?
regarding the bold portion: a-ha! so... two different causes create just as much harm. but one situation is obviously preferred. how come? isn't it obvious that some common ground should be sought?
Last edited:
Well, yes, you do have to start with an attitude of trusting your ears. There's no "wrong" result to a good ears-only test; if you can hear the difference between A and B, that's useful information, if you can't hear the difference between A and B, that's useful information.
Finding out what's real is a win/win.
Finding out what's real is a win/win.
There is an absolute truth in audio . The source material isn't up to much . I will demonstrate this .
In 1970 I was about 14 . I took a day off of school to visit Tottenham Court Road in London . My friend Stewart and I drifted into Lindairs . A reel to reel recorder was playing through perhaps a Crown amp and AR3a's ? I said how wonderful it sounded . The salesman said not true as I have just changed the amp and speakers to something you could afford and you didn't notice ( Kenwood / Trio AR 7's ? ) . He then said you will never hear that sound at home as this is a master tape . He paused and then said , however you now know it could sound that good and these modest components are fine to own . To this very day it is one of the best sounds I ever heard . These shops were despised . Many people I regard as the best worked in them . Jimmy Hugues is one .
Blind tests are fine if a trend is sort . I suspect a trend is as good as it gets . Just know to play the reference twice . If C sounds better then it genuine did as B should be optimum . Wrong would be not liking Quad 63's . I would feel genuine shame .
In 1970 I was about 14 . I took a day off of school to visit Tottenham Court Road in London . My friend Stewart and I drifted into Lindairs . A reel to reel recorder was playing through perhaps a Crown amp and AR3a's ? I said how wonderful it sounded . The salesman said not true as I have just changed the amp and speakers to something you could afford and you didn't notice ( Kenwood / Trio AR 7's ? ) . He then said you will never hear that sound at home as this is a master tape . He paused and then said , however you now know it could sound that good and these modest components are fine to own . To this very day it is one of the best sounds I ever heard . These shops were despised . Many people I regard as the best worked in them . Jimmy Hugues is one .
Blind tests are fine if a trend is sort . I suspect a trend is as good as it gets . Just know to play the reference twice . If C sounds better then it genuine did as B should be optimum . Wrong would be not liking Quad 63's . I would feel genuine shame .
Last edited:
agree
AND (I think it's the nth time I mention this). the recording process includes mixing, mastering and God knows what else. the output of the mic does not go directly to disc (be it silvery or black).
there's EQ going on and more often than not (at least so I'm told) a lot of other things too. whenever the guy in front of the mixing board takes the decision to move some slider or rotate some knob, it's based on what he hears from some speakers, driven by an amp which amplifies the signal output by a D/A converter.
that's not even mentioning mic choice and placement.
a similar process is then repeated with different speakers, amps etc at the mastering stage.
and all those decisions are based on their preferences (with cues from band members etc).
and somehow we expect that different speakers, playing in different rooms, driven by different amps and different signal sources to give just the sound we prefer
dvv, try to take a few step back and look at what you wrote. then, please tell us: would there be any unbalance if someone said "I don't care what dvv likes or thinks"?
then, please take a look at my sig
No need, mr_push_pull. My views are just and only that, my views. I do not claim they are the God's own truth carved in stone. Give me a pratical demonstration of what you claim that is opposed to what I claim, and if I like what I hear, I have no troubly posting here that you have proved otherwise to what I used to think.
I am generally wildly stocked with audio gear (it fills up several cupboards) dating back from 1976 to this day. Some of it is there as a late fulfilment of my dreams several decades old, but most are there simply because I like the way they sound. The only rational argument I can conjure is that when I try something out, say a CD player, I like to check it out on three different systems in three rooms. It's a good way to keep first thoughts in check, makes me less prone to immediate impressions becoming my general view too quickly and easily. And I do keep a 'scope, two tone generators (one precision to 100 kHz, other less precise but out to 5 MHz), THD meter and lab power supplies. It may surpise to learn that beside listening, I also like to measure 'em at least a bit, usuall more than just a bit.
I have participated in similar discussion many times before and I know the result - A who is a measurement freak will never change the mind og B, who thinks measurements are for surfers, and vice cersa.The whole discussion is stupid since enither party has thus far proved itself right by producing a prefect amp, which would fully substantiate either's claim.
My position is somewhere in the middle. Measurement is good as long as you don't proclaim it the absolute truth. It's an indispenable tool in any half serious design work.
But I also acknowledge that quite obviously, we have as yet no method of using measurement, any one or a group of, which can guarantee a product which say 80% of listeners would agree is great. It may indicate a quality design, but is no hard guarantee.
Let me suggest a test. Build a simple home power amplifier, nothing fancy, just a solid job, using your own or somebody elses project you know or believe to be a good one. Listen to it carefully for a week or so. Then unsolder and replace the NFB network and the input stage resistors, and instead of quality but normal prices 1% metakl film resistors, solder in the same value Dale or Caddock resistors.
It will measure excatly the same 0-100,000 Hz under any and all conditions. But it will not sound the same. A week of listening will have you hearing more, not as in an epiphany, but that little bit more, a wee bit more precision, more definition. I didn't believe it myself, until many years ago I tried it. Now I know I was wrong and I have adjusted my views.
After all, I'm not in this to make money, I'm in this because I like to learn. Hence my readiness to change my point of view once proved wrong, and proved can be a simple demo, or a piece of advice I try out and find to be true and good.
I should say about Sid . Such a nice man . Neither of us had the slightest idea who the other one was .
He said he would take me to meet Ed Villchur if I faithfully promised not to BS . He said he just wont tolerate it . Alas Sid died before we did .
I think you can see Sid was unlikely to say to Ed about capacitors . The saddest part of this story is Sid wanted to make the Model 9 again and asked if I would help .
The large regret is Ed Villchur is my No 1 hero . He and I both lived is a place called Woodstock .
Villchur said he was asked how he made his turntable image so well . His answer was no idea what you are talking about . I wish I had been there . I would have said because the turntable has a minimal influence on the stylus . The suspension works correctly and that would preserve the stereo information . The pickup arm is chunky like a broadcast arm . It is good on resonance . I guess Ed knew that and was saying stop being pretentious ?
The AR test record is remarkable . The anechoic tracks made in his garden I believe ?
Sid did say something about age of caps . I forget exactly . I think it was that they fitted ones that lasted well .
He said he would take me to meet Ed Villchur if I faithfully promised not to BS . He said he just wont tolerate it . Alas Sid died before we did .
I think you can see Sid was unlikely to say to Ed about capacitors . The saddest part of this story is Sid wanted to make the Model 9 again and asked if I would help .
The large regret is Ed Villchur is my No 1 hero . He and I both lived is a place called Woodstock .
Villchur said he was asked how he made his turntable image so well . His answer was no idea what you are talking about . I wish I had been there . I would have said because the turntable has a minimal influence on the stylus . The suspension works correctly and that would preserve the stereo information . The pickup arm is chunky like a broadcast arm . It is good on resonance . I guess Ed knew that and was saying stop being pretentious ?
The AR test record is remarkable . The anechoic tracks made in his garden I believe ?
Sid did say something about age of caps . I forget exactly . I think it was that they fitted ones that lasted well .
same goes for me. just opinions correlated with limited experience.
it's not a war, just a clash of divergent views, but we're all men and a fact of life is that eventually we happen to be called on our statements
Exactly!
I bear no ill will to anybody, and certainly nobody on this forum. I may be occasionally misunderstood in my sometimes harsh comments on Britain and British, but think - why the hell would I bother? And why only Britain, and not also say Germany, or France?
The answer is simple - because I actually care about Britain. I lived there 1967-1970, just under the Quantock hills, 12 miles from Taunton. Those were surely the best three years of my life, and I learnt so much there, I can't even write a list.
And yes, I say this with pride, the Brits have impressed me with some aspects of their life then, although I am sad to say I am told by Brits today that the England I remember is no more. I hope they are wrong. I've been to England last in 1986, and I am burning to go visiting again, though I've passed through Heathrow in the summer of 2009, while travelling to Edinburgh.
France I have no connection with, save for a few Internet friends. I have no emotional ties with the country, so I'm not really concerned. Germany a little better, given that I am 1/4 of Austrian origins, and Austrians are simply southern Germans, more or less.
But England I am emotional about - how could I not be? In that emotion, I probably come off as overcritical, but I really, honestly would much prefer to see the British audio industry as it once was, strong and innovative, with products like Leak sandwich speakers, Spendor BC3, Armstrong electronics, Lecson electronics (even if they were largely designed by Bob Stuart, I see that as an asset), and so forth. I want to be once again blown away by British products as I was, for example, by B&W's DM6 ("Fat man") phase alligned speakers, the No.1 that was so copied later on.
That said, I still think most (though certainly not all) British amps sound dull. We can discuss how much of that comes from the new owners of once independent companies.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.