More:
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September 1992
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September 1992
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
No, I don't think that's what John was saying; if I understand him correctly, he takes issue with the idea of evaluating audio equipment by ears alone (i.e., no peeking). For John, it's important to know (visually or otherwise) what he's listening to so he can tell what he's hearing. I don't get it, but I've got a rather simpler mind.
How could I believe in science? I have a BA in physics, lots of after graduate classes in engineering, have 100's of books on physics on my bookshelf, and have studied audio problems and solutions for the last 47 years or more.
Double blind testing FOR ME, has not been shown to be useful. To believe in something just because it follows scientific protocol, YET does not give useful results, is pointless.
However, some believe in it anyway, and like 'religion' I can accept that, so long as they do not try to push it on me, or attempt to negate my opinions and conclusions by citing Toole, Lipshitz or any of that particular group of believers.
Double blind testing FOR ME, has not been shown to be useful. To believe in something just because it follows scientific protocol, YET does not give useful results, is pointless.
However, some believe in it anyway, and like 'religion' I can accept that, so long as they do not try to push it on me, or attempt to negate my opinions and conclusions by citing Toole, Lipshitz or any of that particular group of believers.
It isn't 'peeking', it is keeping track of what source I am listening to, WHEN the music is continually changing. 'Peeking' implies actually seeing something and making some judgement from what one might see, but that is NOT the case, here. It is just having an A be an A, and a B be a B, so that I can decide whether I prefer A or B or if they both sound essentially the same. A computer could arbitrarily assign A and B, to two different products, and not tell me which is A or B. That would not matter.
And some refuse to believe in to, like a "religion". I can accept that, as long as it's understood to be an opinion or belief.
Results from controlled sensory testing may not be useful for someone selling entertainment and fashion, but for determining audible phenomena, they are incredibly useful.
Well then, all you have to do is tell A from B 8 times out of 10 (whether from preference or whatever) without peeking and you have something significant.
Not questioning that at all. Actually suggesting as clear differences can be heard, this may be a place to look to find objective measures that can be applied at the commodity as well as the higher end products.
So, if I buy an HCA 750, 1000, 1200, it should show me a clear step up? Provided they are new enough not to need re-capping of course. Not fair to compare less than as-designed. An A23 just is not in the cards with my wife still unemployed.
Here you go, from my Tower-III thread:
Here is 500 KHz 100V P-P response with 6N2P input tube, looks highly asymmetrical (for my taste). However, it is way above officially accepted audio band, but anyway it is a symptom that indicates presence of some non-linear phase shifts. Since subconscious sensitivity to phase shifts is 1,000 times better than a conscious one let's improve it anyway. The less of distortions we add is the better.
Here is the same 100V P-P, 500 KHz square, but with 6N1P tube. Looks much better, except some overshoots. Now, even way beyond officially accepted audibility the amp performs much better:
Here is the same, with 10 pF capacitor in parallel with 12K feedback resistor:
Another question D. Self can't answer only from a book.
He explains why I have never been happy with a passive preamp. FINALLY, a good technical explanation that passes the basic sniff test. But here is the question: If I follow a volume control with a buffer, have I done nothing but put the problem in the input stage of the buffer? Either I am missing something, or this is a case of not-my-problem.
He explains why I have never been happy with a passive preamp. FINALLY, a good technical explanation that passes the basic sniff test. But here is the question: If I follow a volume control with a buffer, have I done nothing but put the problem in the input stage of the buffer? Either I am missing something, or this is a case of not-my-problem.
You may be educated, tvrgeek, but you lack a great deal in understanding differences in audio equipment.
From SY's point of view, virtually every solid state power amp should sound the same, and he can prove it with his 'scientific' tests. Yet, your wife seems very sensitive to different power amps. How can this be? This is for you to decide.
Now, what about Parasound power amps? Well, ANYTHING less than 1000, is NOT my design, and usually I have NO input to its parts selection or topology, unless someone in Taiwan decides to use what is already chosen by me for parts and decides to use a version of one of my topologies that I developed from 44 years ago.
The differences between the 1000, 1200, A23 should be trivial. This is because they have the same topology and parts selection (by me). The differences are age, price point, number of output devices, output power, power supply capacity, and to some degree, the amount of Class A region available.
I routinely use an HCA1000 for TV sound and I am happy with it. I would not use the HCA1000 for more critical listening, but it is pretty good for what it is.
The 1200 is just a bigger version of the 1000.
The A23 is just a newer version of the 1200 or 1500.
I hope, in future, to try an A21 for my home system. There is where the breakpoint should be.
In any case, it is important to make sure that the BIAS of the output stage is properly set. Often, many units come from Taiwan, are underbiased. The test is about 22-25mV across one of the emitter resistors, at idle (no signal) after warm-up (at least 1/2 hour). I test everything that I get for my own system for this, before listening.
From SY's point of view, virtually every solid state power amp should sound the same, and he can prove it with his 'scientific' tests. Yet, your wife seems very sensitive to different power amps. How can this be? This is for you to decide.
Now, what about Parasound power amps? Well, ANYTHING less than 1000, is NOT my design, and usually I have NO input to its parts selection or topology, unless someone in Taiwan decides to use what is already chosen by me for parts and decides to use a version of one of my topologies that I developed from 44 years ago.
The differences between the 1000, 1200, A23 should be trivial. This is because they have the same topology and parts selection (by me). The differences are age, price point, number of output devices, output power, power supply capacity, and to some degree, the amount of Class A region available.
I routinely use an HCA1000 for TV sound and I am happy with it. I would not use the HCA1000 for more critical listening, but it is pretty good for what it is.
The 1200 is just a bigger version of the 1000.
The A23 is just a newer version of the 1200 or 1500.
I hope, in future, to try an A21 for my home system. There is where the breakpoint should be.
In any case, it is important to make sure that the BIAS of the output stage is properly set. Often, many units come from Taiwan, are underbiased. The test is about 22-25mV across one of the emitter resistors, at idle (no signal) after warm-up (at least 1/2 hour). I test everything that I get for my own system for this, before listening.
Nope, never said that. And wouldn't. See, for example, one of the papers I cited a few posts back, Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31.
That's bad faith, John. They are not his test and you know it. And dismissing a large body of research out of hand is also bad faith, or at least very closed minded. Did you even look at them?
John, yup. That is why I am hear to learn. A couple of books is not going to catch me up on 50 years of experience either, but they can help me jump over some wrong directions a lot quicker.
Much thanks so I did not fall for the comments on the legacy site for the slick sheet for the 750 "Influenced by" sure is not the same as "designed by" I'll start watching for a 1000 and for sure check the bias.
So, the question on the volume control is what provides a more linear input than the Blameless for a post volume buffer, LM4562? THAT1600?
Much thanks so I did not fall for the comments on the legacy site for the slick sheet for the 750 "Influenced by" sure is not the same as "designed by" I'll start watching for a 1000 and for sure check the bias.
So, the question on the volume control is what provides a more linear input than the Blameless for a post volume buffer, LM4562? THAT1600?
This is not true, virtually every solid state amp is designed to be FLAT between 20-20,00KHz, deliver an essentially 'undistorted' output through that range, and the vast majority that we consider HI FI, manage to do so. So, what is wrong? Why doesn't everything sound the same to everybody? SY might quibble about changes in damping factor, etc, but really, these are small changes for most of us, AND we can verify that to ourselves just by adding a 1 ohm series resistor in series with the loudspeaker that we are listening to. TRY IT!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.