Here's some woo free commentary on choosing capacitors, courtesy of Walter Jung..
Picking Capacitors - Walter G. Jung and Richard Marsh
Picking Capacitors - Walter G. Jung and Richard Marsh
probably some expression on type of sound seems good try.. atleast..
High End Audio - Listening note
High End Audio - Listening note
Chase the link on tonmeister.ca I gave you before. Basically, you absolutely need level-matched double blind comparisons, otherwise you're conflating a lot of factors having nothing to do with the actual sound. Chapter 5 is the most relevant- read the entire thing in detail.
Of course, if you measure things like 3dB of frequency response change, you don't need DBTs to establish audibility!
One answer is in how to tell in a reliable way how to tell the difference in sound. This video doesn't apply perfectly, but it shows a few pitfalls in human hearing that can lead one astray:
Audio Myths Workshop - YouTube
The scientific test is the double blind test, or as SY has been saying, "ears only" - a comparison between two devices, configurations or whatever based only on the sound, not just without regard to which is which, but without knowledge of which is which.
This statement is true, but incomplete. In audio, they (or even 'we', when we're not on our toes!) can still believe that what they hear is a performance (audible) difference.
I just watched the Myths video. Though interesting, there was nothing there I was not already aware of. There was also nothing there I could or would refute or disagree with. It is indeed a fascinating science and my hat is off to those who pursue it to that extent.
I will however restate my position. I won't go back over my music performance history but please accept that it has been extensive and at times of very high quality. Unless one possesses the gift of perfect pitch, most people rely on some sort of electronic device to zero in on a standard for the venue and conditions involved.
Beyond that point it is in fact "All Ears". In almost sixty years I have never experienced a jazz combo leader or the conductor of a symphonic group stop a rehearsal or performance because of something seen on a scope or panel. That doesn't negate the value of scopes and panels for amplifier design, scientific research and just plain audiophile intrigue.
All I am now and previously proposing is somewhat more confidence in the accuracy and dependability of what one hears as a gauge to what a circuit is doing. I don't have to have scientific proof that the fragrance of a rose exists and is measurable, before I can appreciate the aroma.
Again, I am fascinated by the science of both electronics and audio and stand in awe of those who have made so many significant discoveries. I just do not believe I am delusional, speaking to aliens, or completely irrational if I post a report dealing with and/or based on a sensibility that I have trusted successfully (and even earned me a few dollars) for a span of several decades
Someone on this forum has the signature "Just Hear The Music". Being truly grateful for and appreciative of the science and technology involved, that's essentially all I want to do. And to a "reasonable" extent, I do trust what I hear. In my mind formal testing is complementary to enjoyable listening – not its replacement or adversary.
Nothing more....nothing less.
O.K. .... back to the "real" business at hand.
_____________
Sorry Andrew. I will attempt to keep my distance.
I will however restate my position. I won't go back over my music performance history but please accept that it has been extensive and at times of very high quality. Unless one possesses the gift of perfect pitch, most people rely on some sort of electronic device to zero in on a standard for the venue and conditions involved.
Beyond that point it is in fact "All Ears". In almost sixty years I have never experienced a jazz combo leader or the conductor of a symphonic group stop a rehearsal or performance because of something seen on a scope or panel. That doesn't negate the value of scopes and panels for amplifier design, scientific research and just plain audiophile intrigue.
All I am now and previously proposing is somewhat more confidence in the accuracy and dependability of what one hears as a gauge to what a circuit is doing. I don't have to have scientific proof that the fragrance of a rose exists and is measurable, before I can appreciate the aroma.
Again, I am fascinated by the science of both electronics and audio and stand in awe of those who have made so many significant discoveries. I just do not believe I am delusional, speaking to aliens, or completely irrational if I post a report dealing with and/or based on a sensibility that I have trusted successfully (and even earned me a few dollars) for a span of several decades
Someone on this forum has the signature "Just Hear The Music". Being truly grateful for and appreciative of the science and technology involved, that's essentially all I want to do. And to a "reasonable" extent, I do trust what I hear. In my mind formal testing is complementary to enjoyable listening – not its replacement or adversary.
Nothing more....nothing less.
O.K. .... back to the "real" business at hand.
_____________
Sorry Andrew. I will attempt to keep my distance.
Last edited:
Bob, please read the link I posted. No-one, least of all me, has suggested that you shouldn't use your ears for testing of audibility. In fact, exactly the opposite was suggested. But ears only! Otherwise the quality of your evidence is equivalent to that of alien abductions or fairy spotting (please note the subject of this sentence).
When orchestras audition musicians, they do it from behind a screen. There's a reason for that.
When orchestras audition musicians, they do it from behind a screen. There's a reason for that.
SY, I understand and have experienced that selection process. I don't intend to take up any more time and space on this thread as my points are so simplistic that even I am aware of the overstatement produced by my several posts.
I will read those items I have not gotten to as yet, but I have said enough and learned much.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and PEACE
I will read those items I have not gotten to as yet, but I have said enough and learned much.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and PEACE
Last edited:
Should be interesting to hear from a fellow Linear Audio contributor.
"The case for subjective Listening Tests
Hans van Maanen
In his Guest Editorial, Hans van Maanen argues that although in theory decisions for audio development should be based on scientifically conducted controlled listening tests, there are many reasons why this in practice almost never happens.. Well-controlled tests are very difficult to organize and execute and the results are often ambiguous. On the other hand, there is a large body of subjective listening results and other circumstantial evidence for audible effects in audio equipment. Although not strictly ‘scientific’, when analyzed rigorously, this evidence can be used to determine promising avenues of development."
Volume 4
"The case for subjective Listening Tests
Hans van Maanen
In his Guest Editorial, Hans van Maanen argues that although in theory decisions for audio development should be based on scientifically conducted controlled listening tests, there are many reasons why this in practice almost never happens.. Well-controlled tests are very difficult to organize and execute and the results are often ambiguous. On the other hand, there is a large body of subjective listening results and other circumstantial evidence for audible effects in audio equipment. Although not strictly ‘scientific’, when analyzed rigorously, this evidence can be used to determine promising avenues of development."
Volume 4
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.