When I read D Self's writings, such as this one:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm
I feel very confused. As someone who has the pretense of being a rational scientist, swearing by my copy of the Skeptic's Dictionary, I feel I should agree with that article in whole, yet here I am reading this forum (and worse, Audioasylum), using silver/teflon wiring, Auricaps, and seven dollar resistors -- all the while knowing that a blind or null test will show me my folly, and thus avoiding it...
Sorry, destroyer X, for this threadjacking.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm
I feel very confused. As someone who has the pretense of being a rational scientist, swearing by my copy of the Skeptic's Dictionary, I feel I should agree with that article in whole, yet here I am reading this forum (and worse, Audioasylum), using silver/teflon wiring, Auricaps, and seven dollar resistors -- all the while knowing that a blind or null test will show me my folly, and thus avoiding it...
Sorry, destroyer X, for this threadjacking.
I'm not surprised if you have just read Self's diatribe. Unfortunately, it appears to me that he cannot really explain why people can hear certain differences and therefore attempts to both deny those differences by suggesting analogs with several other areas of science and then heads down the route of greater and greater refinement of a set of measurements which only lead him to be more skeptical about whether people can really hear what they claim to. Then this always leads to the implication that humans are basically nuts and terribly unreliable. He uses the term "subjectivist" in a derrogatory way.
I find this interesting. Self acknowledges here that objective listening (let's not unfairly discredit the witness by using the word "subjective") has an poor or even negative correlation with objective performance measurement that Self uses. But rather than drawing the conclusion that his measures are inadequate, he prefers to question the witness.
Of course, if you want to make a living out of being an audio guru you cannot go around saying "I don't know, I just haven't figured it out yet". Or "I have all these theories but my amps still don't sound that good yet". No, you have to go around saying "Very few people have my insights or rigorous approach, why not buy my book and learn from my research or sign up for one of my courses?"
IMO people, using their ears, are a much more reliable and objective source of audio performance assessment than ANY scientist or other using measurement equipment or simulators. We can all tell a live saxophone or voice from a recording - easily. Hifi simply isn't very realistic yet and the defects are quite audible.
The greatest folly of scientists and engineers is to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and create a comfort zone within a re-assuring process or theory. Unfortunately, I see no evidence whatsoever on Self's site of objective performance measurement or comparison using PEOPLE. So, although I have never heard the Self amp myself, it wouldn't surpise me at all if its greatest followers are famillies of oscilloscopes sitting in their lounge of an evening listening to their favourite sinewaves.
Traderbam,
I find your notion of families of oscilloscopes sitting happily in their lounge rooms listening attentively to their favourite sine waves absolutely comical, and entirely apt.
Ne'er was there a better description of D. Self's often dissonant view of the world...... Absolutely my feeling, too.
Rarely do I find humour amongst the prostatic gumshots of this forum, but this one was genuinely funny, and I loved it.....
Thank you!
Cheers,
Hugh
I find your notion of families of oscilloscopes sitting happily in their lounge rooms listening attentively to their favourite sine waves absolutely comical, and entirely apt.
Ne'er was there a better description of D. Self's often dissonant view of the world...... Absolutely my feeling, too.
Rarely do I find humour amongst the prostatic gumshots of this forum, but this one was genuinely funny, and I loved it.....
Thank you!
Cheers,
Hugh
hahahaha! I never saw to, one scope together distortion analiser
Walking together the street, and entering a shop to buy audio amplifiers!
This way, let me made the obvious conclusion, my pleasure, equipments must be made for ears, for human ears, and adapted to some small cultural differences too.
I am shocked till today.... looking myself into a mirror and asking myself....am i bassy guy.... the Englishman, once, told me boomy....i am walking the street with a persecution delirium.... when someone looks at me.... i always thinking :
- "he nows!, i am a bassy, boomy guy"
What a shame to me..but now serious, if the man was rigth, and the one i trust, my country needs 6 db plus low end.
Carlos
Walking together the street, and entering a shop to buy audio amplifiers!
This way, let me made the obvious conclusion, my pleasure, equipments must be made for ears, for human ears, and adapted to some small cultural differences too.
I am shocked till today.... looking myself into a mirror and asking myself....am i bassy guy.... the Englishman, once, told me boomy....i am walking the street with a persecution delirium.... when someone looks at me.... i always thinking :
- "he nows!, i am a bassy, boomy guy"
What a shame to me..but now serious, if the man was rigth, and the one i trust, my country needs 6 db plus low end.
Carlos
traderbam said:
Traderbam,
This may be your opinion, but that's all what it is. It flies in the face of a long history of human unreliability when it comes to perception, be it sound, vision, or just repeating a story.
You don't hear with your ears, you hear with your mind. A person can listen to the same music, on the same system, same time of day, on two days and report different perceptions. Witnesses present at an accident often report different course of events. After reading a newspaper report of the event they were present at, they report a different course of events, because they can't keep their own experiences and the newspaper report apart.
An example: People witnessing an accident are asked about how much time there was between the accident and the arrival of the ambulance. They give wildly differring times. Sure, because their WAS NO AMBULANCE. When confronted with that, they get angly and aggressive. This was an accident, for Pete's sake. OF COURSE there was an ambulance! See what I mean?
Let me give you another example of people rationalising their perceptions with their believes. This involves a famous neuroscience case, where a patient has a rare defect in his brain that prevents him to be aware of his right body side. He cannot feel, hear, see anything at the right side, he is also not aware of his right arm and leg.
The doctors are fascinated and try to force him to acknowledge he has a right side. One doctor sits in front of him and takes the patients right hand in his hands so the patient clearly sees it. He then asks him: how many hands do you see? Answer: three. Question: don't you think that is strange? Answer: No, why? You have three arms, so naturally there are three hands.
Now this is no joke, it is a classic case that has been studied over and over again. This patient was an intelligent, fully functioning (except for this defect) human being. Neurophsychology is replete with less extreme examples of cases documenting the extremely cheating nature of human perception. I admit this one is a bit extreme, but it also clearly indicates that people will do WHATEVER is necessary to hang on to their believes. And you call them reliable, objective? You've got a lot of humour, my friend!
Jan Didden
Jan,
Why are some people able to describe sonic difference of the two amps (black boxes), not being informed about their technical differences, both amps should be "same sounding" according to traditional a la Self explanation? Why do the different people come with similar sound descriptions independently, not knowing assessment of the others?
Some time ago I also had agreed with D. Self's scepticism, especially when I had not performed my own listenning tests.
Why are some people able to describe sonic difference of the two amps (black boxes), not being informed about their technical differences, both amps should be "same sounding" according to traditional a la Self explanation? Why do the different people come with similar sound descriptions independently, not knowing assessment of the others?
Some time ago I also had agreed with D. Self's scepticism, especially when I had not performed my own listenning tests.
I am not rooting for Self here. I have other gripes with him, and I think his pathetic hanging on to classical topologies stifles innovation big time. He is a smart and intelligent man, if he only had a more open mind he could do great things.
I also accept that people can hear differences between amps, although I could (if I took the time, which I am not prepared to do) come up with a long list of cases where people couldn't here a difference between different amp (that measure differently) under blind conditions.
What I strongly protest is the idea that somehow people, with their track record of unreliability, bending facts to fit their beliefs and full of prejudice, are seen as objective and reliable. Evidence to the contrary abounds on this forum.
Traderbam himself is a prime example. To support his case, he states flatly "Everybody can hear the difference between a life voice and recording" or something to that effect. Really? Has he or "everybody" tried it in a controlled and blind environment? Well, I have. I have been present at an event where recordings of a chamber quartet were compared with the quartet life. I tell you, it was damn difficult, and I (and others present) frequently got it wrong. And we cheated a few times, because we saw that on some takes the quartet was just going through the motions and not really playing. That saved some reputations, but it was nothing to be proud of. Shocking, to say the least.
Jan Didden
I also accept that people can hear differences between amps, although I could (if I took the time, which I am not prepared to do) come up with a long list of cases where people couldn't here a difference between different amp (that measure differently) under blind conditions.
What I strongly protest is the idea that somehow people, with their track record of unreliability, bending facts to fit their beliefs and full of prejudice, are seen as objective and reliable. Evidence to the contrary abounds on this forum.
Traderbam himself is a prime example. To support his case, he states flatly "Everybody can hear the difference between a life voice and recording" or something to that effect. Really? Has he or "everybody" tried it in a controlled and blind environment? Well, I have. I have been present at an event where recordings of a chamber quartet were compared with the quartet life. I tell you, it was damn difficult, and I (and others present) frequently got it wrong. And we cheated a few times, because we saw that on some takes the quartet was just going through the motions and not really playing. That saved some reputations, but it was nothing to be proud of. Shocking, to say the least.
Jan Didden
traderbam said:You bought his book, didn't you Jan?
Yes of course, both. Plus a couple on perception, human behaviour, the relation between mind and matter, critical listening etc. No use discussing things you have no clue about.
I would also buy your book, if you would only write one.
I could recommend Edelman's "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire".
Jan Didden
Ok Jan,
I'll let you know when my book is published!
Responding to your earlier points, I simply don't see the relevance of them.
Audio is intended for human consumption. So to deny or avoid judging audio on human response seems downright unscientific and "on another planet" to me.
It is just a non-starter to discredit the intended consumer. Where's that going to get you?
It would be like Ford Motor Co being told by Jan that one in a million humans think they have 3 arms so you must not test your new designs for customer acceptance by using customers. No, you'd better sit a PC in the driver's seat and ask it how much it liked the handling at the end of the test.
Keep it real, folks.
I'll let you know when my book is published!
Responding to your earlier points, I simply don't see the relevance of them.
Audio is intended for human consumption. So to deny or avoid judging audio on human response seems downright unscientific and "on another planet" to me.
It is just a non-starter to discredit the intended consumer. Where's that going to get you?
It would be like Ford Motor Co being told by Jan that one in a million humans think they have 3 arms so you must not test your new designs for customer acceptance by using customers. No, you'd better sit a PC in the driver's seat and ask it how much it liked the handling at the end of the test.
Keep it real, folks.
This is degenerating un to the old rationalist / subjectivist (measurment vs listening) argument. Yawn.
No doubt there are amps with ultra low noise and distortion that sound bad for one reason or another. But here is the problem with evaluation by listening: http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/techtalk/dist_sound/index.htm
Play the first two examples. Some of you will say example one sounds better, some example two . (any one who likes thre or four -- well I just don't know what to say about that!). Me I like example one better until after dinner, then as the sun sets and I relax with a little single-malt Scoth two sounds better. Worse still if I walked in to a room listened blindly to just one or two and was asked to identify it, my sucess rate would be better than random but not a lot unless I really focused.
Measurements have the potebtial of being reproducable and communicatable over space and time. But if ten people try to me(independently) to describe the difference between example one or two (expecially without knowing the physical difference) the cances of consistancy are small, there would be little chance I could reproduce the differences and I doubt I could make much sense out of the various adjectives used or relate them to my experiences.
No doubt there are amps with ultra low noise and distortion that sound bad for one reason or another. But here is the problem with evaluation by listening: http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/techtalk/dist_sound/index.htm
Play the first two examples. Some of you will say example one sounds better, some example two . (any one who likes thre or four -- well I just don't know what to say about that!). Me I like example one better until after dinner, then as the sun sets and I relax with a little single-malt Scoth two sounds better. Worse still if I walked in to a room listened blindly to just one or two and was asked to identify it, my sucess rate would be better than random but not a lot unless I really focused.
Measurements have the potebtial of being reproducable and communicatable over space and time. But if ten people try to me(independently) to describe the difference between example one or two (expecially without knowing the physical difference) the cances of consistancy are small, there would be little chance I could reproduce the differences and I doubt I could make much sense out of the various adjectives used or relate them to my experiences.
I'm sorry, I can't follow you.
Yes, audio is for human consumption, what are you driving at? My point was that it is a long standing, proven fact that humans are notoriously unreliable as far as their opinions and perceptions go. Therefore, I strongly protest your view that humans are the most reliable and objective "entities" to judge the relative merits of amplifiers (and maybe other audio equipment).
Now, I fully accept that, as with cars, there's something for everyone on audio. Some like tubes, some like ss, some like pwm. For whatever reasons. But your term "objective" is at odds with the terms "like" or "opinion". I don't see how one can develop amplifiers and make progress towards "hi-fi" without measurements. At the end, you may want to listen to them to convince yourself they sound good, or to try to find a correlation between measurement differences and possible audible differences, but then you must also accept that your listening can throw you completely off course as to the general acceptance of your amp by the public at large.
Why is it that for the last 20 years or so there was (in my opinion) no real progress in amp development? We gyrated from low THD, to low feedback, to nested feedback, to tubes to hybrids, and around again. And they all had something going for them, and they all had their enemies. I think this is precisely because humans are decidedly un-objective. Something that is new, elitist or whatever is perceived as better. Why do car models change every year or so, without the actual roadhandling or performance changing? Isn't that a similar reason? Why would people pay a hefty premium to get an Audi, while being aware (or maybe not) that it is just a Volkswagen in a more expensive suit? Because the more expensive suite is perceived as covering a "better" contents.
Why do some manufacturers of hybrid amps put tubes behind a transparent window so you can see that glow? Because it does influence the perception and buying decision, NOT because it influences the sound. Man, we are sooo gullible!
Because humans have feelings, pet peeves, emotions, prejudice etc, and, again, are decidedly un-objective. In other words, the most unsuitable "tools" to base any engineering decision making on, except maybe marketing engineering.
Jan Didden
Yes, audio is for human consumption, what are you driving at? My point was that it is a long standing, proven fact that humans are notoriously unreliable as far as their opinions and perceptions go. Therefore, I strongly protest your view that humans are the most reliable and objective "entities" to judge the relative merits of amplifiers (and maybe other audio equipment).
Now, I fully accept that, as with cars, there's something for everyone on audio. Some like tubes, some like ss, some like pwm. For whatever reasons. But your term "objective" is at odds with the terms "like" or "opinion". I don't see how one can develop amplifiers and make progress towards "hi-fi" without measurements. At the end, you may want to listen to them to convince yourself they sound good, or to try to find a correlation between measurement differences and possible audible differences, but then you must also accept that your listening can throw you completely off course as to the general acceptance of your amp by the public at large.
Why is it that for the last 20 years or so there was (in my opinion) no real progress in amp development? We gyrated from low THD, to low feedback, to nested feedback, to tubes to hybrids, and around again. And they all had something going for them, and they all had their enemies. I think this is precisely because humans are decidedly un-objective. Something that is new, elitist or whatever is perceived as better. Why do car models change every year or so, without the actual roadhandling or performance changing? Isn't that a similar reason? Why would people pay a hefty premium to get an Audi, while being aware (or maybe not) that it is just a Volkswagen in a more expensive suit? Because the more expensive suite is perceived as covering a "better" contents.
Why do some manufacturers of hybrid amps put tubes behind a transparent window so you can see that glow? Because it does influence the perception and buying decision, NOT because it influences the sound. Man, we are sooo gullible!
Because humans have feelings, pet peeves, emotions, prejudice etc, and, again, are decidedly un-objective. In other words, the most unsuitable "tools" to base any engineering decision making on, except maybe marketing engineering.
Jan Didden
Of course they do. But so what? Herein lies the crux:
Unless you measure with a human your measurement is INDIRECT and unreliable by definition. It is only relevant if you can evaluate the correlation between the measure and human judgement of the sound. And you cannot do that without humans! It's as simple and as thorny as that.
Self does not appear to do this.
You can have the most detailed and creative bunch of measurements in the world but if they don't correlate with performance they are of only intellectual value at best.
Once you start saying you don't want humans in the design process because they aren't as consistent as your oscilloscope then you have lost the plot. Many have lost the plot.
Hi Jan,
Is that the 'Real-life' V 'Recorded' session that was recently reported in the Hi-Fi press, possibly Hi-Fi News.
I can't find the magazine at the moment, but it was very interesting.
____________________________________________________
Hi Mikeks,
I am NOT writing about phase distortion.
What Destroyer is hearing arises when you loudspeaker load a Miller VAS C.dom stabilised bipolar class-B amplifier circuit, like the D Self Blameless. The change in reproduction is caused by load angle PLUS C.dom shift.
The output stage reverse commutates through a fraction of its crossover bias potential in order to create the differential stage error necessary for the input stage to lead-charge the C.dom.
It does not matter what you write in reply to me, I have heard the distortions, then I ran the Sims to investigate.
I have here been trying to pass on a method for circuit observation that matches what we hear, but this seems inordinately difficult !!!!!
____________________________________________________
Hi Destroyer.
Your thread has aired ideas and opinions which are as different as the sounds amplifiers make.
At least Traderbam gave us a laugh.
Have you tried the 'Blameless' with different loudspeakers ?
It can sound so much better with simple loudspeaker systems and old fashioned full range drivers which do not use crossover networks. Simple loudspeakers generate much less back EMF and thus the choke and C.dom induced amplifier distortion effects are much less likely to be triggered at normal listening levels.
Cheers .............. Graham.
Is that the 'Real-life' V 'Recorded' session that was recently reported in the Hi-Fi press, possibly Hi-Fi News.
I can't find the magazine at the moment, but it was very interesting.
____________________________________________________
Hi Mikeks,
I am NOT writing about phase distortion.
What Destroyer is hearing arises when you loudspeaker load a Miller VAS C.dom stabilised bipolar class-B amplifier circuit, like the D Self Blameless. The change in reproduction is caused by load angle PLUS C.dom shift.
The output stage reverse commutates through a fraction of its crossover bias potential in order to create the differential stage error necessary for the input stage to lead-charge the C.dom.
It does not matter what you write in reply to me, I have heard the distortions, then I ran the Sims to investigate.
I have here been trying to pass on a method for circuit observation that matches what we hear, but this seems inordinately difficult !!!!!
____________________________________________________
Hi Destroyer.
Your thread has aired ideas and opinions which are as different as the sounds amplifiers make.
At least Traderbam gave us a laugh.
Have you tried the 'Blameless' with different loudspeakers ?
It can sound so much better with simple loudspeaker systems and old fashioned full range drivers which do not use crossover networks. Simple loudspeakers generate much less back EMF and thus the choke and C.dom induced amplifier distortion effects are much less likely to be triggered at normal listening levels.
Cheers .............. Graham.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.