John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2757 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th September 2012, 12:55 AM   #27561
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
And a lot of what really counts in achieving realistic sound is about this type of distortion, as in eliminating it. The simplistic DBT won't pick it...
If after listening for a while, you "learn" to spot something in the sound, why would it go away just because you're not allowed to use anything but your ears?
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 12:59 AM   #27562
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
All you have proven is that above certain thresholds noise and distortion is audible and noticed to a statistically significant degree.

What these are are by now well established for test tones over headphones in an otherwise anechoically quite environment. In real environments with ambient noise and real signals with masking etc., they are higher, exactly how much by is a lot to do with the signal.
rcw
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 01:42 AM   #27563
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
If after listening for a while, you "learn" to spot something in the sound, why would it go away just because you're not allowed to use anything but your ears?
As I mentioned in an early post, because one's mind likes to perceive continuity in experience. I've had this effect occur to me on numerous occasions, listening to my own and other people's systems: once a certain aspect is recognised which is seen, incorrectly often, to be a contiguous part of the whole then the brain "wants" to keep hearing that same message, and "fills in the gaps".

If the anomaly is filed, within your brain, as something that exists quite apart from the main stimulus, it's extraneous in a very strong sense from the key experience, then it's relatively easy for you, the listener, to pick its absence or presence. For example, very light rain is falling on the roof while listening to music, it stops and starts rapidly; you'll find it very easy to say at any point in time what the current status is. But, then you have the effect of very light rain as a sound effect within the music, that fits in so to speak; and deliberately, effectively stop and start that effect. I would suggest that a lot of people would find it confusing, and make many mistakes when asked whether the effect was there or not.

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 01:44 AM   #27564
diyAudio Member
 
Johnloudb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by coluke View Post
Yeah - have a look at Tom Nouisane's site, for example

L.
Okay, thanks. I looked at the "flying blind" paper, though, I don't agree with a lot of what he says. He says we are more sensitive to a stimulus when first exposed to it which is not true. Then he contradicts himself and explains that he'd much prefer an experienced listener doing blind testing as they do much better than inexperienced listeners.

He thinks extended listening is worse. Not true. We respond much more strongly to sounds we are familiar with, and that have importance to us.

I have complaints with most blind tests I see. I will have to do my own blind testing sometime, to satisfy myself as to what I can and can't hear.

John
__________________
My Website: Hyperacusis, Tinnitus, My Story

Last edited by Johnloudb; 12th September 2012 at 01:50 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 01:48 AM   #27565
diyAudio Member
 
Johnloudb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
You need to do more reading.
Perhaps. I may pick up that Linear Audio issue.
__________________
My Website: Hyperacusis, Tinnitus, My Story
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 01:53 AM   #27566
diyAudio Member
 
Johnloudb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
If after listening for a while, you "learn" to spot something in the sound, why would it go away just because you're not allowed to use anything but your ears?
It changes the conditions. In some conditions we may not respond to a sound at all or even be aware of it, yet in other conditions it can be horrible.
__________________
My Website: Hyperacusis, Tinnitus, My Story
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 02:41 AM   #27567
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnloudb View Post
I have complaints with most blind tests I see. I will have to do my own blind testing sometime, to satisfy myself as to what I can and can't hear.

John
As an example of how I get around my brain trying to "fool" me by glossing over something, is that I deliberately emphasise the characteristic, make it stand out as something apart from the "musical message". So, use very "bad" recordings which means that distortion unconnected with the music really hits you "between the ears", and listen with the ear very close to the tweeter at normal listening levels. Problems with the reproduction are bolded, underlined, increased font size, and marker penned, like all get out, this way ...


And don't worry, I don't do this for long, a couple of sec's tells me all I need to know ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 06:38 AM   #27568
zinsula is offline zinsula  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
zinsula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by morinix View Post
What is the Fermer deal that was beaten to death months ago?

Look here.
I cannot see where and how it was beaten to death, and I'm still waiting for an answer to the last question from Jakob2.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakob2 View Post
Might be, but it was 5 trial dbt, Fremer did turn in his score sheet (John Atkinson did as well), and Fremer correctly identified the amplifier playing 4 times out of 5. So you got Fremer correct 5 times out of 5 on the same/difference question, correct 4 times out of 5 for the question which amplifier (out of 3 possible) was playing. Atkinson and Fremer as a tag team were correct 9 times out of 10 for the same/difference question.

I donīt know if there were 100 participants overall, but it was reported that no other attendee of the AES-convention, who took the test reached a significant result.
Care to calculate the probabilities that Fremer was just guessing and that Fremer and Atkinson as a tag team were just guessing?



Yeah, it was Lipshitz (and not Vanderkooy) who after Tiefenbrunnīs test realized that the noise level could be detectable; both Lipshitz and Vanderkooy knew already in front of the test, that the relay switching noice could be detectable.

Does this really make an important difference to my description wrt to the sensitivity of that test?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
No, it's still incorrect. As is your recounting of the Fremer incident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakob2 View Post
Sorry for the inconvenience, but i am not able to see my incorrectness:

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article



(written by Stanley P. Lipshitz)

The "Fremer incident" seems to be what i wrote, due to the description of Michael Fremer; afaik no one, not Clark, not Lipshitz expressed that Fremers description of his results was wrong.
Could you please quote the source, which tells other numbers or another story?
__________________
If you can't trust your ears, then CLICK HERE
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 08:48 AM   #27569
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnloudb View Post
I have complaints with most blind tests I see. I will have to do my own blind testing sometime, to satisfy myself as to what I can and can't hear.
That is a superb idea- I wish more people had your curiosity. Please don't hesitate to contact me off line if you want any help in setting it up.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2012, 11:21 AM   #27570
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: toronto
John,

Looks like second stage of JC 80 ? Phono preamp stage with active RIAA bass boost. First stage likely has passive RIAA HF filter at it's output. Was the input jfet 2sk146 or coupled 2sk147 - don't think you were using 2sk389 back then ?
Is there a door prize? A bottle of Patron anjeo ? A six pack of Bud?

Last edited by ticknpop; 12th September 2012 at 11:28 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Đ1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2