Plese, please, please, prove it to me

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Re: hmmm.

:cop:.This thread originated somwhere else, but since it is a discussion between two persons mostly, about matters that may not be of interest to other mebers, I decided to open a new thread on this specific subject and don't pollute the other thread

Peter Daniel
diy Audio Moderator :cop:

SY said:
so I can take a "judgement suspended pending evidence" point of view and still be able to sleep at night.
Click to expand...

SY, I am in complete agreement with you. While I don't believe, I am also open to the possibility that it is real. Thus, my urging Peter to persue it because I honestly think this thing is bigger than huge to all fields of electronics, if he can prove it.

I am quite disappointed in his unwillingness to back himself up (and make a buck or two in the process).

Sawzall said:
If you make a statement as fact, be prepared to prove it. Every thing else should be clearly marked as opinion in a manner that a newbie could not confuse it as a proven fact.
Click to expand...

I 2nd that. I think if one makes a statement, one should be prepared to back it up. What was offered as "explanation" in this case is highly questionable in its scientific validity, to put it mildly.

But that's not the point. We are here to learn from each other and I am glad that I did just that in the process
 
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
mrfeedback said:
I agree with Jonathon Carr that different insulating pads will likely cause differing capacitive coupling to the heatsink and that this may be audible according to the transisent stability of the amplifier circuit.

I also agree that bending moments on the device may cause alteration of chip characteristics.

mrfeedback, I can state definitively that
1) different insulating pads will cause differing capacitive coupling;
2) bending moments (whatever that means) on the device causes alteration fo chip characteristics.

There is no debate / questioning on that. What the debate is about is how audible that it.

So far, we know four or five guys / gals who claim to hear it. The rest of us apparently are too deaf to hear it, and too ignorant to understand the rationale behind it, or see the link between vibrations and "airy" sound.

your observations on heatsink I think take Peter's theory one step further. so maybe we should also test heatsinks next time?

Has anyone tried to see if their amps sound different in winter vs. summer? :)
Click to expand...
 
Peter Daniel

Peter Daniel

Member
Joined 2002
audiosector.com
Paid Member
Re: Re: hmmm.

millwood said:


SY, I am in complete agreement with you. While I don't believe, I am also open to the possibility that it is real. Thus, my urging Peter to persue it because I honestly think this thing is bigger than huge to all fields of electronics, if he can prove it.

I am quite disappointed in his unwillingness to back himself up (and make a buck or two in the process).



I 2nd that. I think if one makes a statement, one should be prepared to back it up. What was offered as "explanation" in this case is highly questionable in its scientific validity, to put it mildly.

But that's not the point. We are here to learn from each other and I am glad that I did just that in the process.
Click to expand...

So let's go one more time over it again. Do you have any specific suggestion how I can prove it? After seeing your desperate attempts to persuade me to do that, I'm actually more than willing to comply now.

By saying that "this thing is bigger than huge to all fields of electronics" you greatly exaggerate it, as some respected members already mentioned that it's old news.
 
Peter Daniel

Peter Daniel

Member
Joined 2002
audiosector.com
Paid Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: hmmm.

millwood said:


Peter, shall we NOT go there, please. Repeating myself isn't exactly the kind of things to do in public.
Click to expand...

While you were constantly repeating your demands for me to prove things, you never presented a practical suggestion how I should go about doing that. Quite frankly I have no clue how I can do that. By that I mean that we are mostly restricted by time and location.

If you decide to not pursue it any more, can I suggest that you don't mention my name and demand for proving any longer in that thread?
 
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hmmm.

Peter Daniel said:
While you were constantly repeating your demands for me to prove things, you never presented a practical suggestion how I should go about doing that. Quite frankly I have no clue how I can do that. By that I mean that we are mostly restricted by time and location.
Click to expand...

Peter, i thought I had actually presented a couple of ways for you to do but I guess you don't remember it. If you need me to refresh your memory, please let me know.

Peter Daniel said:
If you decide to not pursue it any more, can I suggest that you don't mention my name and demand for proving any longer in that thread?
Click to expand...

I think I am going to pursue it, with or without you. It is just that i would be extra disappointed in your absence on such a top that you feel so passionate about, :)
 
Peter Daniel

Peter Daniel

Member
Joined 2002
audiosector.com
Paid Member
Re: Millwood

This is what I found on the subject of testing. But I still don't know , how I can arrange it in time and space, so you will not have any doubts as to my results. Can you provide suggestion now without repeating yourself?

millwood said:



Andy, I am happy to provide one, if you are OK with it. I am not sure how scientific it is, tho.

How about getting a few test subjects. Divide them into three groups. Those who believe in pad sound, whose who don't, and those who don't know about it.

Provide two identical gaincard amps, one with a silpad (amp S) and one with an AO pad (amp AO). do the usually trick of volume adjusting them, etc.

Conduct a series of double blind A vs. B listening tests, and ask the subjects two questions:

1) if A is different from B;
2) if A is preferred over B.

A / B can be either amp S, amp AO, or both. So the possible combinations are

amp S, amp S
amp S, amp AO
amp AO, amp S
amp AO, amp AO.

at alpha of 95%, run a hypothesise that amp S sounds the same as amp AO. (t-test I believe).

at the same confidence level, run another hypothesis that amp S is preferred over amp AO.

it would be interesting to know how well doug blackburn will do in such a test, :)
Click to expand...


ALW said:
What time interval do you propose for your tests and evaluations?

The ear can only detect certain fundamantal changes during a relatively short assessment time (read: minutes, hours).

During this time one can make simple assesments related to amplitude and frequency balance. This is the problem with DBT - short time spans, matched amplitudes etc. reduce the ability to determine any difference at all. It's a null result, not a proof.

The assessment of the underlying improvement in the music (totally unrelated to both the above criteria) often only comes after several days listening, or at least a good few hours. This is a critical point - frequency response errors, changes in amplitude have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the fundamentals of the music, providing the devices are operating within their envelopes, and the changes are not so extreme as to cause other ill-effects.

This is what makes many people think that speakers are the worst part in the chain, as they have the grossest reponse / amplitude errors. They are most important to the sound least important to the music.

Quick A/B's do not work, they fail to take into account the way we hear, the processing of which occurs in the brain.

I think Jonathan Carr's method, proposed previously, of making externally identical amplifiers labelled A / B or C, with the salient details identified internally is a better method.

One has to ensure that the insides cannot be seen / viewed without obvious evidence you then simply pass these amps onto a number of individuals who report their experience / preference over a long time period. The data / listening notes are then analysed subsequently.

How many times have you changed something with the immediate result that you think it's better, only to find, several days later that it isn't? This is a common theme amongst those of us actually doing this stuff.

I've done a lot of design work with remote partners, where improvements have been made and both of us have reported identical results, sonically, and this has often been with people I would view as having daimetrically opposed views to my own, with different systems, musical tastes etc.

I strongly believe that better is better for most people and this has been a most surprising finding for me, the difference in opinions solely comes down to the actual location you are along the audio path to nirvana - I may not like your system, you may hate mine, but an improvement to a common area is likely to be the same to both of us.

Andy.
Click to expand...


SY said:


Quite the opposite. Peter is claiming to have possibly found an interesting phenomenon. Putting aside the notions of analogy, there's not much in the way of a clear mechanism in the electronics to explain this- unless Audio Freak's hypothesis is correct. Either way, there's potentially something important here, and those of us who would love to see the state of the art advanced, rather than just speculated about, are trying to figure out a way to pin this down.

Now, measurement is a fine thing IF you know what you're looking for. And IF you know you're not chasing a chimera. So the first thing that has to be done is to take the instrument that is giving the "funny" result (in this case, Peter's perceptual system) and run the experiment. It's possible that there's a real phenomenon here. It's also possible that Peter is falling into the normal human trap of bias and expectation. It's improper to assume one or the other in the absence of evidence. So the way to cut this problem in half is by LISTENING, not measuring.

And fortunately, through more than a century of sensory research, the methods exist to use the human faculty of listening to determine what's going on. Since Peter, like most of us, doesn't have much experience with sensory testing, my suggestion has mutated to something about which he (and apparently others) feel just as confident, but less emotional.

So, let's give the rhetoric a rest and start with some baby steps.
Click to expand...
 
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Re: Re: Millwood

Peter Daniel said:
This is what I found on the subject of testing. But I still don't know , how I can arrange it in time and space, so you will not have any doubts as to my results. Can you provide suggestion now without repeating yourself?
Click to expand...

I have plenty of time for the study. I am willing to wait as long as it takes, Peter.
 
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Peter Daniel said:


You have amazing ability to create confusion and doubts. No, it didn't vibrate at will.
Click to expand...


for a split second, Peter, can you stop thinking about others viciously? i offered one possibility and meant nothing but that possibility. a simply answer like "no" would have been sufficient.

i have never guessed your intention. and I expect you do nothing less.
 
M

millwood

Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Millwood

Peter Daniel said:


Do you mean by that, that I cannot post my observations and views on a forum, because I don't have a solid proof?
Click to expand...


No, Peter. you are welcome to present any of your observations and views to this forum. It is just when you present your observations and views, present them as observations and views.

I think more than a couple of us had pointed that to you before. and I guess some times it takes repeating to get the point crossed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom