Of course we all enjoy our music in our own ways. But if you want to determine whether there is a difference between, say, two amplifiers it's not about quality or enjoyment, it's about, err, differences. And in that case you might hear freq response or level differences and think you hear whatever else it is you try to hear, hence the need for matching - under these test circumstances.
BTW Curious that your system sounds the same no matter the volume. Normally both the electronics and the speaker distortion are level dependent, and also your hearing sensitivity versus frequeny varies with level. Very curious that you can't hear that!
jan didden
Last edited:
It is the probability that _at_ _least_ one person scores 0 hits (or 5 hits as well).
The probability in a 5 trial experiment to get 0 (or 5) hits is 0.03125; so you take this 0.03125 and calculate the binomial distribution for 100 trials (because 100 participants are trying) to get the probability that 1 participant gets 0 (or 5) hits; that is 0.1348.
The probability that 0 participants get 0 hits is 0.0418. According to the Kolgomorrow axioms all probabilities summed up must equal 1.
If P(0)=0.0418 then P(>0) = 1 - 0.0418 = 0.9582
Last edited:
Well, PMA, I am sorry to have not moved more forward, however I have been showing some schematics (that are trivial to you, but potentially valuable to others) recently, and I DID hope for some questions or some criticisms of them, just to give another ACTUAL representation of what we do in hi end audio, rather than some outsider's negative belief.
I have NO control over this thread, except that I am a known figure in audio design, and some people want to communicate with me about certain audio problems. However, it would appear that an equal number of people would rather criticize my very efforts as a waste of time and money. And yet a third category of people, are just here to see the 'fire-fight' between the hi end 'subjectives' and the ABX demanding 'objectives'.
Over the years, I have tried to convey what we did to 'promote in a good way' audio design, when money was freer, many more people had extra income to indulge in their interests, and a proportion of these people bought hi end audio equipment to play back their vinyl record collection (often vast) or to render the most sound quality from the latest digital playback.
That time is PASSED! Now, hi end audio is almost the exclusive domain of the VERY RICH who seem to have all the extra income available, and they play by even stricter rules than the upper middle class demanded. So we HAVE to make outside cases that boggle the eye as well as the pocketbook, (even ours), so that it will fit in a 'rich man's' environment and be compatible with what the competition is offering, kind of like big tail fins on '50's American cars. Remember them, everyone? Beautiful, but impractical.
Parasound survives as a 'bridge' between the extreme hi end, 'Constellation Audio' for example, and mid fi, like JVC, Samsung, etc.
While relatively expensive compared to mid-fi, Parasound attempts to give 'bang for buck', good specs, and solid engineering in its products. It remains still affordable to the middle class who have kept their jobs, but it is not the VERY BEST that we know what to do! It just fits in a category of outside BUILDABLE audio amplification, that is not too 'tricky' to demand skilled adjustments. Kind of like a Honda, rather than a Ferrari. We save the 'Ferrari' designs for Constellation.
I am not at liberty to give EACH and EVERY design detail that I get paid to engineer into a product, but I do try to give important hints and tips, when given a chance.
Now, PMA, what do you want of me?
I have NO control over this thread, except that I am a known figure in audio design, and some people want to communicate with me about certain audio problems. However, it would appear that an equal number of people would rather criticize my very efforts as a waste of time and money. And yet a third category of people, are just here to see the 'fire-fight' between the hi end 'subjectives' and the ABX demanding 'objectives'.
Over the years, I have tried to convey what we did to 'promote in a good way' audio design, when money was freer, many more people had extra income to indulge in their interests, and a proportion of these people bought hi end audio equipment to play back their vinyl record collection (often vast) or to render the most sound quality from the latest digital playback.
That time is PASSED! Now, hi end audio is almost the exclusive domain of the VERY RICH who seem to have all the extra income available, and they play by even stricter rules than the upper middle class demanded. So we HAVE to make outside cases that boggle the eye as well as the pocketbook, (even ours), so that it will fit in a 'rich man's' environment and be compatible with what the competition is offering, kind of like big tail fins on '50's American cars. Remember them, everyone? Beautiful, but impractical.
Parasound survives as a 'bridge' between the extreme hi end, 'Constellation Audio' for example, and mid fi, like JVC, Samsung, etc.
While relatively expensive compared to mid-fi, Parasound attempts to give 'bang for buck', good specs, and solid engineering in its products. It remains still affordable to the middle class who have kept their jobs, but it is not the VERY BEST that we know what to do! It just fits in a category of outside BUILDABLE audio amplification, that is not too 'tricky' to demand skilled adjustments. Kind of like a Honda, rather than a Ferrari. We save the 'Ferrari' designs for Constellation.
I am not at liberty to give EACH and EVERY design detail that I get paid to engineer into a product, but I do try to give important hints and tips, when given a chance.
Now, PMA, what do you want of me?
Last edited:
This imho is a very interesting case of presenters bias
.Normally in those early days only successes were taken into account; afair it was Les Leventhal again who brought the two tailed test into the audio field (see his AES paper on statistically significant poor performance, what makes the nice acronym "SSPP").
So for the Fremer case the hypothesis most likely were:
H0: p=0.5
H1: p>0.5 one sided alternative hypothesis
Please provide evidence that 0 hits were accepted as an success in this test, if you differ in opinion.
The probability of 5 hits in a 5 trial experiment is 0.03125 (as said before), so the expectation value for 100 participants would be n x p = ~3 .
According to the same source no one else scored 5, the only one was Michael Fremer.
Still according to the same source of information, Fremer was able to identify the correct model of amplifier (out of 3 possible models in each trial) 4 times out of 5 (p=0.04527) .
Isn´t the really interesting question what the probability is to choose randomly one out of 100 to get the only correct result by pure chance (for the different/same test and 4/5 for model identification) and this one is still by pure chance Michael Fremer?
The answer to the bonus question would be "who could know"
Last edited:
upper 1% and what they buy/want
years ago, I had a power amp I wanted to sell in hong kong. It got a listen by the top high-end retailer there. he asked the msrp. $4500 USD. He said that was too low and his clients would not take it seriously until it was $40K or more. And, then it didnt look good enough to be sold for $40K. His clients only want the best and they do not come in to audition the gear. They depend on the store owner to do that. If the store owner knows of something better that has come along, he calls the customers and they have it sent to the customers home by currior and set up for him.
Many years ago, a Saudi civil engineer was having a 'villa' built for him as a prize for helping the usa company get the job. this civil engineer ownd sky scrapers in Manhatten and diamond stores for the ultra wealthy! His driver would not even take us to the engineers diamond store in S.Arabia as we didnt look wealthy in dress nor manner. Anyway, when asked which phono cartidge did he want - this or that one -- he just said.... which is the best? And, not to ask him such questions again. he only wanted the best.
That is where the real High-End is and has been for a long time. What we, the 99 percenters, think is expensive, isnt by rich and especially wealthy people. This is the customer that John's dealers has dealt with. So complain all you want about cost and expensive looks and over-the-top designs... it isnt being developed and sold for a 99 percenter.
years ago, I had a power amp I wanted to sell in hong kong. It got a listen by the top high-end retailer there. he asked the msrp. $4500 USD. He said that was too low and his clients would not take it seriously until it was $40K or more. And, then it didnt look good enough to be sold for $40K. His clients only want the best and they do not come in to audition the gear. They depend on the store owner to do that. If the store owner knows of something better that has come along, he calls the customers and they have it sent to the customers home by currior and set up for him.
Many years ago, a Saudi civil engineer was having a 'villa' built for him as a prize for helping the usa company get the job. this civil engineer ownd sky scrapers in Manhatten and diamond stores for the ultra wealthy! His driver would not even take us to the engineers diamond store in S.Arabia as we didnt look wealthy in dress nor manner. Anyway, when asked which phono cartidge did he want - this or that one -- he just said.... which is the best? And, not to ask him such questions again. he only wanted the best.
That is where the real High-End is and has been for a long time. What we, the 99 percenters, think is expensive, isnt by rich and especially wealthy people. This is the customer that John's dealers has dealt with. So complain all you want about cost and expensive looks and over-the-top designs... it isnt being developed and sold for a 99 percenter.
Last edited:
You've answered your own query about an example of the intellectually dishonest technique of post hoc recasting of the question. Appreciate the help, saved me searching, which I frankly don't have time for.
Perhaps you could show evidence that Fremer was the "only" person to score 5/5, not that it would be surprising that one person only would do so (13.5%). And since his "performance" was only self reported (if you include the anecdotal account of his employer), your idea of "control" is rather different than mine.
edit: This quote from Fremer's self-reporting is telling:
No, that's as significant as 5/5.
Yes, combining emissions from both orifices. Between the methane and the superheated air you've got a conflagration congregation. But occasionally there are some insights discernible through the flames.
Way less than 1% given the numbers of CTC BT's. The world is full of these stories, like the guy that was flown to a compound in Brazil just to replace interconnects and speaker wires.
BTW did anyone ID the system in the remake of "The Mechanic", I found the end unsatisfying.
Found it in the trivia right on the TT, they ID the amp as a Jolida JD 302BRC
John,
I noticed from the published schematics of JC-2 that it is sort of "step back" from your philosophy of "minimal number of junctions" - diff. stages and folded cascodes in that amp are both cascoded. Did you do it because of limited power dissipation in 2SK389/2SJ109 devices or was there any other reason?
In the US the 90th percentile is $82,000. I don't know many folks that spend 3 months gross pay on a line stage plus pre-amp.
You've got them, right now! Which is my smart-ar!!! way of saying that, IMO and experience, speakers are the least of the problems in getting that type of behaviour.
As I have indicated many times my reference, which all here will pay lip service to, is how live music is perceived, as an experience. And of course one of the characteristics of sound produced by real instruments is that subjectively the sound doesn't appear to get louder as you, say, approach it from a distance, the term I would prefer to use is that it is perceived as becoming more intense. If someone is playing on a piano fortissimo, one can hear it clearly from the other end of the house, and if you then walked up to the instrument and stuck your head over the soundboard while still being played in this fashion then the sound would be dramatic, overwhelming. It wouldn't sound different, or distorted, it would still sound exactly like a piano!
And so should an audio system behave. If you try the same test of walking from the other end of the house while playing a piano recording at realistic volumes you should perceive the same acoustic behaviour. Or, alternatively, you stay in the same position in the listening room and adjust the volume from low, up to full volume: the experience should mirror the house walk. Yes, of course, the sound reflecting through the surfaces of the house will alter aspects of the sound, but the perception of listening to a real piano at varying distances should still be the essence of the experience.
So what's this do with speakers? Well, I have always found, always, that achieving this "effect" is down to how well the electronics, and electricals, are sorted out. Never the speakers, apart from eliminating the typical silly electrical weaknesses many commercial units have ..
Frank
- Status
- Not open for further replies.