kgrlee;3275361I said:It's sad that so few people bother to conduct Listening Tests properly.
Indeed - the first error they make is calling it, and treating it as, a 'test' when listening is purely for pleasure. Of course its not actually 'sad' rather ignorant, and as Ricardo remarked 'profits are made from differential stupidity'.
JC, continually baits us with statements like
Also his pontificating on how important certain tests are but there is no need to conduct these on his own designs.
But Christophe, Jay, Frank, your good self and many others have brought up important points on the conduct of Listening Tests which would be useful to summarize in the context of Blowtorch.
FWIW, it's likely many of JC's designs would come up with a NULL result when compared with an evil 4558 design, even in the most carefully conducted and stress free Blind Listening Test.
But Blowtorch is of such unique quality that I really believe it will NOT produce a NULL result but show significant differences in a Blind Listening Test that would be picked up by very good listeners.
My hope is that this (sadly hypothetical) test will reveal these differences clearly and that the results will also be beyond criticism by everyone. Surely this will further enhance JC's exalted reputation?
I WANT a positive result in a test of Blowtorch and for this, I will do my best to get the very best ears on this, hence my choice of John Atkinson. If some trans Atlantic/Pacific travel is possible, we may be able to bring 5 of the very best ears to this test instead of just 2. plis xskus mi rithmetik.
There is absolutely no intent to denigrate or show up JC's ancient ears. Being old myself, I am well aware of the problems. Instead, I have several times urged him to suggest true golden pinnae among his friends to take part. They may be even more discriminating than my 5 especially when listening out for the merits of Blowtorch.
What we would appreciate from JC, is some help to make sure Blowtorch is performing at its best; ancillaries, cables, room etc.
If he just lent us his spare Blowtorch, we would still miss his expertise in the above. Perhaps he could nominate someone who's competence he trusted.
All of them exhibit usually undefined artefacts.
One of my best experiments:
Take any driver .......
In a quiet room lay it on the table in front
of you.
Drive it to just less than xmax @ ~ 10Hz
Listen carefully ..........
Don't you have to pick a decent source first? What's it to be - vinyl, tape or DAC or all of the above?
But ... have you tried doing that with the driver dead cold, and then compared that to the same unit after it's been installed in a carcase and driven hard for an hour or so with real music material, removed immediately and laid on the table again ...?
Frank
Because I was only talking about decent sources Steven
That one's neither decent nor technically decent.
Frank, if it's a small speaker, get a pack of Cotton Wool from the chemist and try wedging a lump behind the cone and the chassis. Try not to move the cone forward or backward.
It's not a permanent solution cos the Cotton Wool eventually falls off.
If you play a sine wave while pressing gently on the cone surround, you can work out which way you need to nudge the cone.
On a big speaker, turning the unit round often works. What happens is that heat/humidity allows the cone/coil assembly to creep and tilt.
I know all this cos that's how I get the computer speakers I rescued from the tip to work.
One of the most important facets of the test is that the subject picks the music and the source.
If JC, was doing the test, he uses his own CDs, vinyl, SACD etc. And he MUST be happy with the player; .. not a problem if the test is conducted at chez Curl.
But if his nominated golden pinnae wants cassettes, presumably this august person has a good cassette player he could lend us. Alas, all of mine are dead even if the termites haven't eaten them.
Abra, this is another important facet; that the subject 'enjoy' at least one presentation.
We ensure this by letting the subject listen to his preferred system while he can see what it is first so he is happy it is functioning correctly.
There is no doubt in my mind that Blind Tests are stressful. IMHO, this is the MOST important criticism of most Blind Tests. I spent nearly 2 decades working on this problem with some success.
It's only when you manage this that you have any chance of finding the true golden pinnae. If you are lucky enough to find them, be prepared to be amazed at what some people can pick out.
Last edited:
Is anyone seriously interested in yet another NULL test result? At best, it would rate a single line in a Stereophile editorial. Certainly not worth an AES paper from the Dynamic Duo.OK, sounds a tad more promising than the usual tests
But if some people can reliably distinguish between Blowtorch and an evil 4558 device, this would be NEWS. It would answer Jay's Question 1.
Only if the answer to this is YES, can we answer his Question 2 Which one sounds better?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.