Exactly! it works in both directions. How do you remove bias?
I think bias occurs in every comparison we do. It occurs in sighted as well as blind tests. KYW too says that bias is often stronger than the difference that may exist. So, in theorie it would be useless to perform any test, untill we know how to remove bias!
We ar strongly prejudiced about which parts of our hifi system we regard the most influencing to the sound. Prejudice and bias are the reason we do not all think the same way about it. We all listen in the same way.
How do we compare hifi-equipment and speakers in an objective and unbiased way? In a scientivic way?
One way is through measuring with good measuring equipment.
An other way is to find unbiased test candidates. People who have no affinity with hifi. People who have never heard about Stereophile. People with no technological background.
And then you'll need hundreds of people to do a well controlled blind test....
Konnichiwa,
I would think neither. Note carefully that if you take as you reference electrically amplified "contemporary" music, you will hear it through a PA system invariably driven to within an inch of it's life, which invariably will produce a lot of distortion and compression. If you wish to recrate THAT type of "live" sound you must use speakers with loads of distortion and compression, or it will not "sound right".
Sayonara
MBK said:
I would think neither. Note carefully that if you take as you reference electrically amplified "contemporary" music, you will hear it through a PA system invariably driven to within an inch of it's life, which invariably will produce a lot of distortion and compression. If you wish to recrate THAT type of "live" sound you must use speakers with loads of distortion and compression, or it will not "sound right".
Sayonara
keyser said:
So a test on which you base your opinions you admit to being fundamentally flawed, but somehow better than a sighted test? I've got news for you - it isn't any better.
Your blind test as described is not science. Any foreknowledge of the gear under test could influence the result of the blind test making it as worthless as any sighted test. (If bias is bad, it's bad whether it predisposes you towards hearing an effect or *NOT* hearing an effect.)
Real science says you would select the gear for your own system by hiring a large group of disinterested strangers to evaluate single changes against the control system in an ABX test. If you aren't going to do this, you can't cast any stones at people using sighted tests.
No committee is going to select my audio gear. I've heard plenty of terrible gear in other audiophile's systems and they seem to like it! I've heard some older B&W 801s and didn't like them at all. I guess you could try to blame it on the equipment, but since you think it all sounds the same it had to be the 801s didn't it?
Konnichiwa,
And they are LONG, LONG out of use and where in fact one of the most "High End HiFi" Speakers like speakers I have used in decades. They sounded interesting enough for a while (the originals do to) and where close enough to a good studio monitor for me to live with them, but ultimatly their failings told when compared to something more in line with how a high performance speaker should be designed.
This has zip to do with "saving you". If you wish to believe what you do and act according to it, be happy and go your way, as long as you accept that others may hold different believes or indeed may even process incontrovertable knowledge of facts that is in contradiction of your believes.
Sayonara
keyser said:
And they are LONG, LONG out of use and where in fact one of the most "High End HiFi" Speakers like speakers I have used in decades. They sounded interesting enough for a while (the originals do to) and where close enough to a good studio monitor for me to live with them, but ultimatly their failings told when compared to something more in line with how a high performance speaker should be designed.
keyser said:The day I turned from audio subjectivist into audio objectivist is less than a year ago, so I might still be saved
This has zip to do with "saving you". If you wish to believe what you do and act according to it, be happy and go your way, as long as you accept that others may hold different believes or indeed may even process incontrovertable knowledge of facts that is in contradiction of your believes.
Sayonara
As this discussion has touched on musicians and their hi-fi, and as a musician myself, I cannot resist chipping in.
I am often surprised at how disappointing many sound systems are which belong to professional musicians. I believe many are too busy listening to the music to care much about the ultimate fidelity. My own hi-fi ‘preferences’ are somewhat controversial, having opposing views to many on this forum, KYW among them - though his apparent quest for the ‘truth’ is a breath of fresh air - with regard to what constitutes ‘good reproduction’. For example I have formed a preference for the NE5534 and NJM2114 over most others - two op-amps which are currently out of fashion but which ‘do it for me’.
Perhaps musicians listen to music differently. In conversation with a non-musician I was once asked ‘but surely you don’t listen to every single note?’ The answer was something like ‘I have an acute awareness of every note’. At this point the plot thickens a little as I have perfect pitch, so in fact an ‘acute awareness of every note’ is just the start. In reality I instinctively and immediately know each note by name, whether or not it is up to pitch (using A440 as my ‘built-in’ reference) and I ‘map’ the music in front of me in a way that I believe (though I know not for sure) differs from the majority - the other 9,999 adults out of every 10,000 (statistically) who don’t have the same ‘ability’….or should I say… ‘problem’ I wish I knew if this actually has a significant effect on how I listen to music.
Keyser. Though I sympathise with you due to the controversy of your views, from my own experience I don’t agree that amplifiers sound either the same, or simply as good as one another, yet different. For me there are good ones, e.g. JLH class A, and bad ones, e.g. a very cheap Yamaha I used to own, I forget its model number but I had to use it for a week while I was modifying the JLH and I found it so unsatisfying that I eventually preferred not to listen to it at all.
For a bit of fun, please consider the following.
Imagine a scenario where two people perform a listening test using two amplifiers. For the sake of argument lets assume there is a third ‘reference amplifier’ which is for the purposes of this illustration perfect, and against this perfect amplifier they will judge the other two amplifiers in order to determine which is the more transparent to the original signal.
Using the perfect amplifier as a reference (for the sake of this illustration we must assume such an amplifier exists), listener ‘A’ deems amplifier ‘1’to be the most accurate to the original signal, while listener ‘B’ deems amplifier ‘2’ to be the most accurate.
Assume (again for the sake of this illustration) that amplifier ‘1’ is in fact slightly coloured in its ‘tone’ but that it reproduces ambience and space most convincingly, relative to the reference amplifier, and that amplifier ‘2’ reproduces ‘tone’ accurately but loses out slightly against amplifier ‘1’ with regard to its reproduction of ambience and space.
In this case listener ‘A’ subconsciously attaches more relevance to ambience and space and listener ‘B’ more relevance (again subconsciously) to tonal accuracy, each of them doing so with respect to the judgement of overall accuracy to the original signal. I therefore suggest that no two people necessarily would agree on the most transparent amplifier, even in the presence of an absolute reference such as I have illustrated!
Where do we go from here
Oh, and I believe it was Peter Walker (Quad) who once said something like ‘all amplifiers sound the same’
Tim.
I am often surprised at how disappointing many sound systems are which belong to professional musicians. I believe many are too busy listening to the music to care much about the ultimate fidelity. My own hi-fi ‘preferences’ are somewhat controversial, having opposing views to many on this forum, KYW among them - though his apparent quest for the ‘truth’ is a breath of fresh air - with regard to what constitutes ‘good reproduction’. For example I have formed a preference for the NE5534 and NJM2114 over most others - two op-amps which are currently out of fashion but which ‘do it for me’.
Perhaps musicians listen to music differently. In conversation with a non-musician I was once asked ‘but surely you don’t listen to every single note?’ The answer was something like ‘I have an acute awareness of every note’. At this point the plot thickens a little as I have perfect pitch, so in fact an ‘acute awareness of every note’ is just the start. In reality I instinctively and immediately know each note by name, whether or not it is up to pitch (using A440 as my ‘built-in’ reference) and I ‘map’ the music in front of me in a way that I believe (though I know not for sure) differs from the majority - the other 9,999 adults out of every 10,000 (statistically) who don’t have the same ‘ability’….or should I say… ‘problem’
I wish I knew if this actually has a significant effect on how I listen to music.Keyser. Though I sympathise with you due to the controversy of your views, from my own experience I don’t agree that amplifiers sound either the same, or simply as good as one another, yet different. For me there are good ones, e.g. JLH class A, and bad ones, e.g. a very cheap Yamaha I used to own, I forget its model number but I had to use it for a week while I was modifying the JLH and I found it so unsatisfying that I eventually preferred not to listen to it at all.
For a bit of fun, please consider the following.
Imagine a scenario where two people perform a listening test using two amplifiers. For the sake of argument lets assume there is a third ‘reference amplifier’ which is for the purposes of this illustration perfect, and against this perfect amplifier they will judge the other two amplifiers in order to determine which is the more transparent to the original signal.
Using the perfect amplifier as a reference (for the sake of this illustration we must assume such an amplifier exists), listener ‘A’ deems amplifier ‘1’to be the most accurate to the original signal, while listener ‘B’ deems amplifier ‘2’ to be the most accurate.
Assume (again for the sake of this illustration) that amplifier ‘1’ is in fact slightly coloured in its ‘tone’ but that it reproduces ambience and space most convincingly, relative to the reference amplifier, and that amplifier ‘2’ reproduces ‘tone’ accurately but loses out slightly against amplifier ‘1’ with regard to its reproduction of ambience and space.
In this case listener ‘A’ subconsciously attaches more relevance to ambience and space and listener ‘B’ more relevance (again subconsciously) to tonal accuracy, each of them doing so with respect to the judgement of overall accuracy to the original signal. I therefore suggest that no two people necessarily would agree on the most transparent amplifier, even in the presence of an absolute reference such as I have illustrated!
Where do we go from here
Oh, and I believe it was Peter Walker (Quad) who once said something like ‘all amplifiers sound the same’
Tim.
Konnichiwa.
Make sure the test is completely blind, that the subjects participating in the test are "disinterested stangers" with good hearing, make sure the test datasets is large enough that if you can proclaim that the null hyphothesis was not rejected with a .05 level of significance, which is another way of saying that you made sure that at least statistically speaking from your data you can be 95% or better certain that your test did not overlook small but audible differences due to bad statistics.
At least that is what you need to do if you want to claim a suitably wide applicability of your results.
In fact, you should probably do two more additional sets of statistical analysis, namely to analyse all "lucky coins" (meaning listeners with way above average scores) seperatly, ideally in a new test series and with extensive background checks to see what makes these listners above average sensitive) and a second set where you remove the top 10% scorers and bottom 10% scorers to get a good average audibility score.
Of course, if you want to be certain about your own ability to hear differeces, then your desire will become reality, so unless your mindset is one that allows you to attach no particular emphasis of belief to either outcomes you may as well save yourself the test and do what you believe/feel is right.
I'm not unkind, I merely point out the fundamental logical and factual fallacies of the position you present and which you recommend to others as worthy of adoption. As you are not willing to supply the neccesary information on the usefulness and limits of the tests you perform and so on I do so in order that anyone wishing to consider aopting your viewpoint has sufficient data to make a reasonably informed choice.
BTW, I am not asking YOU to change your views whatsoever, nor anyone else.
Sayonara
keyser said:
Make sure the test is completely blind, that the subjects participating in the test are "disinterested stangers" with good hearing, make sure the test datasets is large enough that if you can proclaim that the null hyphothesis was not rejected with a .05 level of significance, which is another way of saying that you made sure that at least statistically speaking from your data you can be 95% or better certain that your test did not overlook small but audible differences due to bad statistics.
At least that is what you need to do if you want to claim a suitably wide applicability of your results.
In fact, you should probably do two more additional sets of statistical analysis, namely to analyse all "lucky coins" (meaning listeners with way above average scores) seperatly, ideally in a new test series and with extensive background checks to see what makes these listners above average sensitive) and a second set where you remove the top 10% scorers and bottom 10% scorers to get a good average audibility score.
Of course, if you want to be certain about your own ability to hear differeces, then your desire will become reality, so unless your mindset is one that allows you to attach no particular emphasis of belief to either outcomes you may as well save yourself the test and do what you believe/feel is right.
keyser said:
I'm not unkind, I merely point out the fundamental logical and factual fallacies of the position you present and which you recommend to others as worthy of adoption. As you are not willing to supply the neccesary information on the usefulness and limits of the tests you perform and so on I do so in order that anyone wishing to consider aopting your viewpoint has sufficient data to make a reasonably informed choice.
BTW, I am not asking YOU to change your views whatsoever, nor anyone else.
Sayonara
TimA,
When I send my last post I hadn't read your post yet. First I'll go offtopic:
I am now 19 years old, and I started playing piano less than a year ago. It was after a few weeks that I discovered that I have perfect pitch. I've been training it, but it only works when there's no music playing. Maybe that is because I use any C on the piano as reference. When there's music playing, the ground tone (this probably is the wrong word) of the music becomes my reference. Could you advise me on how to develop it further?
Now back on topic...
I understand the point you are trying to make. But now it makes me wonder what electrical parameters could cause such difference. Do you know what is electrically different between tone and spaciousness? Almost every amplifier is capable of producing any note in the audio band to within 1.5 dB. I don't know what would make the sound more or less spacious.
This last line isn't really supportive to the point you were trying to make in the rest of your post. It is more supportive of my view, which you do not share. Earlier in this thread I already quoted from a B&W prospect and form Roger Russell's (former engineer at McIntosh Lab) website. Both the prospect and Roger Russell claim no audible difference between good amps.
When I send my last post I hadn't read your post yet. First I'll go offtopic:
I am now 19 years old, and I started playing piano less than a year ago. It was after a few weeks that I discovered that I have perfect pitch. I've been training it, but it only works when there's no music playing. Maybe that is because I use any C on the piano as reference. When there's music playing, the ground tone (this probably is the wrong word) of the music becomes my reference. Could you advise me on how to develop it further?
Now back on topic...
I understand the point you are trying to make. But now it makes me wonder what electrical parameters could cause such difference. Do you know what is electrically different between tone and spaciousness? Almost every amplifier is capable of producing any note in the audio band to within 1.5 dB. I don't know what would make the sound more or less spacious.
Oh, and I believe it was Peter Walker (Quad) who once said something like ‘all amplifiers sound the same’
This last line isn't really supportive to the point you were trying to make in the rest of your post. It is more supportive of my view, which you do not share. Earlier in this thread I already quoted from a B&W prospect and form Roger Russell's (former engineer at McIntosh Lab) website. Both the prospect and Roger Russell claim no audible difference between good amps.
keyser,
I'll contact you via email (probably tomorrow) regarding perfect pitch, that way we won't bore everyone else here with it.
I mentioned the quote from Peter Walker not to support my own view (obviously), but as I though you might find it interesting.
I expect it is complex and I certainly don't know the answer myself.
Tim.
I'll contact you via email (probably tomorrow) regarding perfect pitch, that way we won't bore everyone else here with it.
I mentioned the quote from Peter Walker not to support my own view (obviously), but as I though you might find it interesting.
I expect it is complex and I certainly don't know the answer myself.
Tim.
You have all those people that swear by tubes, yet they can't hear any difference between tubes and transistors in a blind test. Try this tube vs. transistor blind test, for example.
Wow, this discussion is really getting into a debate on testing methods and the appropriateness of using the human ear.
I hope our Japanese speaking friend did not imply that a PA-system sounds good (I have trouble reading your posts sometimes as they seem to go all over the place no offence intended).
All amps do NOT sound the same and neither do all CD players for that matter. Keyser, what do you want to build the hifi system for? To listen to contemporary CD's? To listen to old fashioned classical recordings? To show off to your (perhaps not so knowledgeable) friends? To blow your girlfriends mind (and her pants off perhaps)? I mean, these are all essential determinants for a GOOD hi-fi system. Good does not imply excellent or superior right?
Do you want to build or buy off the shelf? Are you willing to mix best-of-breeds or do you want a single brand?
I hope our Japanese speaking friend did not imply that a PA-system sounds good (I have trouble reading your posts sometimes as they seem to go all over the place
no offence intended). All amps do NOT sound the same and neither do all CD players for that matter. Keyser, what do you want to build the hifi system for? To listen to contemporary CD's? To listen to old fashioned classical recordings? To show off to your (perhaps not so knowledgeable) friends? To blow your girlfriends mind (and her pants off perhaps)? I mean, these are all essential determinants for a GOOD hi-fi system. Good does not imply excellent or superior right?
Do you want to build or buy off the shelf? Are you willing to mix best-of-breeds or do you want a single brand?
Hi Teun,
Actually I already have a hifi setup. Considering the kind of money I have (and the amount of money I've spend on the system) I am reasonably happy with it. In my view the most important component of any hifi system are the speakers. I started this thread to find out how other people think about it, and to discuss other important variables.
My system is mainly intended to listen to music I like. The sound should be as faithful to the recording as possible. My cd collection consists of music from many different genres. Sometimes when a friend asks me about the impressive array of equipment in my rack, I show off a little, yes
I haven't tried using my hifi to blow my girlfriends pants off. Please tell me how to
I think at this stage I am not competent enough to build my own equipment. If in the future I may ever see a reason to build it myself, I think I will. Up to now I have only done two "projects" of DIY. I actively biamped my Canton RC-L speakers. The only DIY part in this was removing and bridging a few components on the Xover. My second project was making 2 subs.
My components are form various brands.
Actually I already have a hifi setup. Considering the kind of money I have (and the amount of money I've spend on the system) I am reasonably happy with it. In my view the most important component of any hifi system are the speakers. I started this thread to find out how other people think about it, and to discuss other important variables.
My system is mainly intended to listen to music I like. The sound should be as faithful to the recording as possible. My cd collection consists of music from many different genres. Sometimes when a friend asks me about the impressive array of equipment in my rack, I show off a little, yes
I haven't tried using my hifi to blow my girlfriends pants off. Please tell me how to I think at this stage I am not competent enough to build my own equipment. If in the future I may ever see a reason to build it myself, I think I will. Up to now I have only done two "projects" of DIY. I actively biamped my Canton RC-L speakers. The only DIY part in this was removing and bridging a few components on the Xover. My second project was making 2 subs.
My components are form various brands.
Konnichiwa,
Yes, that is what it boils down in the after all, does it not?
Actually, my experience that the best of breed PA Systems, IF used sensibly and operated at least 3 - 6db below the ultimate limts can sound very good. Of course, a PA System made up of 2 5m wide and 4m high walls of speakers and placed on a 30m wide stage left & right during an open air gig will sacrifice a number of image specifics and such, but in terms of tonality, dynamics and detail the best PA System match easily the better upper Mid-Fi gear, if not going well behind.
Of course any PA system sound only as good as the operator allows, most seem more concerend about sounding ear-bleeding loud than any other thing.
This may be related to the fact that on the whole discussion I support neither the audioobjectivist nor the audiosubjectivist viwepoint but a thrid which I call selfdepricatingly the audio-SOB-jectivist though it may be more accuratly as audiopragmatist. To me what matters is the result and if I enjoy it. Oh - and I have been doing Audio stuff in a wide range of roles for the better part of 3 decades, including live & recorded sound, designing pro-audio gear and now moonlighting as High-End audio manufacturer (I don't expect to quit the dayjob any time soon).
Sayonara
PS, some ideas of what I value in reproduced music, what I listen to in terms of music and what I use equipmentwise right now can be found here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/messages/37603.html
Teun said:
Yes, that is what it boils down in the after all, does it not?
Teun said:
Actually, my experience that the best of breed PA Systems, IF used sensibly and operated at least 3 - 6db below the ultimate limts can sound very good. Of course, a PA System made up of 2 5m wide and 4m high walls of speakers and placed on a 30m wide stage left & right during an open air gig will sacrifice a number of image specifics and such, but in terms of tonality, dynamics and detail the best PA System match easily the better upper Mid-Fi gear, if not going well behind.
Of course any PA system sound only as good as the operator allows, most seem more concerend about sounding ear-bleeding loud than any other thing.
Teun said:(I have trouble reading your posts sometimes as they seem to go all over the place
This may be related to the fact that on the whole discussion I support neither the audioobjectivist nor the audiosubjectivist viwepoint but a thrid which I call selfdepricatingly the audio-SOB-jectivist though it may be more accuratly as audiopragmatist. To me what matters is the result and if I enjoy it. Oh - and I have been doing Audio stuff in a wide range of roles for the better part of 3 decades, including live & recorded sound, designing pro-audio gear and now moonlighting as High-End audio manufacturer (I don't expect to quit the dayjob any time soon).
Sayonara
PS, some ideas of what I value in reproduced music, what I listen to in terms of music and what I use equipmentwise right now can be found here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/messages/37603.html
Keyser,
I find it very rewarding to build my own equipment. I knew next to nothing at the start, and learned a lot. Especially I became aware of the difference between probable "audiophool" scam and probable real cause and effect. I highly recommend it.
As to musicians the more I think about it, the more I believe they listen very differently. If you focus on artistic expression all the time, the playback quality becomes a bit secondary. Important, but not number one. I have heard several comments by musicians on concerts etc, who never gave any indication of enjoyment of the music - they listen too carefully and comment mostly on technique and mistakes... never about bad acoustics even in a live concert hall, for instance.
I don't play music but I do photography, and in the photo camp I find myself in the performer's seat. So you have all these camera websites, and a lot of people caring about technical perfection *of the camera*. And their photos, if they show any, really don't do it at all. Ken Rockwell, a photographer whos has a website, coined the term "measurebators" for those kinds of people.
As a photographer I appreciate technical perfection, however, great photos sometimes lack in either camera or even in execution. The whole package then brings it all together. Cameras, lenses, differ a lot, but a good photographer can make great photos with almost any of these. Actually, with *any* of these as long as a photo shows up at all. The technical failings become either part of the art, or they don't matter in the context.
Now if technique and art come together, you get something truly astounding - think Ansel Adams. And here I think it *does* make sense, if time (DIY) and money (commercial products) allow , to strive for the best. If you can't for practical reasons, then by all means enjoy the music from any system you have at hand.
Regarding testing, I have noticed some things in my experience. Usually this comes when I make a change in my DIY setup.
Firstly, I rarely do blind tests. These only matter if you want to convince a large audience of a universal finding that holds water and the test of time. In DIY I only need to know if I and my family enjoy it for the better. I sometimes found no difference in blind tests, only to become annoyed at whatever easy solution I chose - because "I couldn't hear the difference anyway" - weeks later. Because when you concentrate too much on subtle changes, you miss ... ... subtle changes. And subtle changes can matter a lot. For instance, ringing on rare transients that don't appear in every recording. Details you never missed, but you marveled at when you discovered them eventually, in a better setup.
Usually I just do a change and listen, usually tired from the work that I finally finished and just had to give a quick and dirty listen etc. I generally notice any change in the sound immediately, in the first few seconds after the change. I just instinctively know whether it was a good thing or not. Very quickly then I adapt. Sometimes, the sound changed for the worse and I end up convincing myself that it sounded good, despite initial bad impressions. You know, all the effort and careful thinking that went into the mod... And maybe it sounded "bad' only on a brief note in the material I chose for the "test". I forget about it, I adapt, and I don't notice anymore. And again, after weeks, or months, I find out specifically what and why this went wrong. Sometimes it is absurdly obvious - large frequency response anomalies for instance because I used a wrong value component, and didn't measure after building because it "sounded great. But with time, I do notice.
So, I'd say DBT's show only the most obvious differences, and sometimes, not even those (if the material chosen for the test happens to not contain passages that would show the deficiency - this is an important overlooked problem of casual testing).
Even subtle differences can make or break the system though, and may not appear obvious at first. You either have to trust your initial impression, or listen "carefully" for a long time, with many different types of material.
I find it very rewarding to build my own equipment. I knew next to nothing at the start, and learned a lot. Especially I became aware of the difference between probable "audiophool" scam and probable real cause and effect. I highly recommend it.
As to musicians the more I think about it, the more I believe they listen very differently. If you focus on artistic expression all the time, the playback quality becomes a bit secondary. Important, but not number one. I have heard several comments by musicians on concerts etc, who never gave any indication of enjoyment of the music - they listen too carefully and comment mostly on technique and mistakes... never about bad acoustics even in a live concert hall, for instance.
I don't play music but I do photography, and in the photo camp I find myself in the performer's seat. So you have all these camera websites, and a lot of people caring about technical perfection *of the camera*. And their photos, if they show any, really don't do it at all. Ken Rockwell, a photographer whos has a website, coined the term "measurebators" for those kinds of people.
As a photographer I appreciate technical perfection, however, great photos sometimes lack in either camera or even in execution. The whole package then brings it all together. Cameras, lenses, differ a lot, but a good photographer can make great photos with almost any of these. Actually, with *any* of these as long as a photo shows up at all. The technical failings become either part of the art, or they don't matter in the context.
Now if technique and art come together, you get something truly astounding - think Ansel Adams. And here I think it *does* make sense, if time (DIY) and money (commercial products) allow , to strive for the best. If you can't for practical reasons, then by all means enjoy the music from any system you have at hand.
Regarding testing, I have noticed some things in my experience. Usually this comes when I make a change in my DIY setup.
Firstly, I rarely do blind tests. These only matter if you want to convince a large audience of a universal finding that holds water and the test of time. In DIY I only need to know if I and my family enjoy it for the better. I sometimes found no difference in blind tests, only to become annoyed at whatever easy solution I chose - because "I couldn't hear the difference anyway" - weeks later. Because when you concentrate too much on subtle changes, you miss ... ... subtle changes. And subtle changes can matter a lot. For instance, ringing on rare transients that don't appear in every recording. Details you never missed, but you marveled at when you discovered them eventually, in a better setup.
Usually I just do a change and listen, usually tired from the work that I finally finished and just had to give a quick and dirty listen etc. I generally notice any change in the sound immediately, in the first few seconds after the change. I just instinctively know whether it was a good thing or not. Very quickly then I adapt. Sometimes, the sound changed for the worse and I end up convincing myself that it sounded good, despite initial bad impressions. You know, all the effort and careful thinking that went into the mod... And maybe it sounded "bad' only on a brief note in the material I chose for the "test". I forget about it, I adapt, and I don't notice anymore. And again, after weeks, or months, I find out specifically what and why this went wrong. Sometimes it is absurdly obvious - large frequency response anomalies for instance because I used a wrong value component, and didn't measure after building because it "sounded great. But with time, I do notice.
So, I'd say DBT's show only the most obvious differences, and sometimes, not even those (if the material chosen for the test happens to not contain passages that would show the deficiency - this is an important overlooked problem of casual testing).
Even subtle differences can make or break the system though, and may not appear obvious at first. You either have to trust your initial impression, or listen "carefully" for a long time, with many different types of material.
MBK, I agree with you to a point.
I wouldn't know, but I do not doubt that musicians listen differently. After all, audiophiles listen very different than music lovers.
But if nobody has been able to tell the difference between the Opus MM and a zip cord in a blind test, how does the Opus MM help a DIYer? A DIYer should only be concerned with how things actually are. Only thru reproducible technologies (i.e. science) can a DIYer learn anything. Everything else is just a waste of time.
I wouldn't know, but I do not doubt that musicians listen differently. After all, audiophiles listen very different than music lovers.
But if nobody has been able to tell the difference between the Opus MM and a zip cord in a blind test, how does the Opus MM help a DIYer? A DIYer should only be concerned with how things actually are. Only thru reproducible technologies (i.e. science) can a DIYer learn anything. Everything else is just a waste of time.
Konban-wa
lets see; whatever I list here will be booed by definition, so I shouldn't try. I've been in love with my Quad 44, 405-2 and my B&W Matrix'es forever and nothing has ever come between us.
But what gets me excited bores someone else, so that is here not there.
It's actually american slang for playing very very very loud.
phn said:
lets see; whatever I list here will be booed by definition, so I shouldn't try. I've been in love with my Quad 44, 405-2 and my B&W Matrix'es forever and nothing has ever come between us.
But what gets me excited bores someone else, so that is here not there.
keyser said:I haven't tried using my hifi to blow my girlfriends pants off. Please tell me how to
It's actually american slang for playing very very very loud.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.