Which is the reason why I don't argue about perception and don't pay much attention to them when they happen. I'll argue reality as objectively defined and talk about that all day long, but things like "fast" and "colored" or whatever absurd ill-defined adjective one wants to use are pointless to me.
And Lynn, I agree with you about shows and yourself. You once said that you could not listen to my speakers because I used a solid state amp - needless to say, I thought that absurd!
Which is the reason why I don't argue about perception and don't pay much attention to them when they happen. I'll argue reality as objectively defined and talk about that all day long, but things like "fast" and "colored" or whatever absurd ill-defined adjective one wants to use are pointless to me.
And Lynn, I agree with you about shows and yourself. You once said that you could not listen to my speakers because I used a solid state amp - needless to say, I thought that absurd!
My communication at that RMAF show wasn't as clear as it could have been. I'm probably weird, but I hear what sounds like "transistor coloration". If I play with the internals of the amplifier circuit, I can crank it up and down by playing with slew rate, standing current in the driver, moving the Class AB bias around, type of rectifier in the power supply, etc. Unfortunately, these colorations can mimic speaker coloration, to the point where I can't tell them apart, particularly in the chaos, noise, and listening fatigue of a hifi show.
What I meant wasn't that I couldn't listen to your speakers; in fact, they sounded great, and way way better than the drek at the rest of the show. I just couldn't tune into the subtler aspects of the sound ... depth, tonality, the usual things. One of the drawbacks of a loud hifi show with really shrill demo rooms is that hearing acuity, and listening pleasure, can diminish rather quickly.
Last edited:
Who's going to prove everything just so they can plausibly argue that they don't like it, who has the time? As long as I accept that I may not be doing it right (or maybe I am). The onus of proof is right and good and who can argue with that, and it sure takes the sting out of the discussions. 
I disagree that it was a personal statement. There was nothing personal in the way it was worded. It was worded as an objective statement.Not blanket, just personal.
Feel free to disagree
I take the above as a retraction.
Since educated audiophiles know that 50% of the presentation is the room and the rest a combination of system and expectation bias, I find it hard pressed to accept an opinion of a system based on so many variables. The rooms at shows aren't optimized for the purpose, nor is the noise floor or the opportunity for an optimal listening position. Nobody escapes expectation bias......positive nor negative.......that kind of indifference isn't possible. What you might not like at a show you may very well enjoy in the casual environment of your home. DIYers have a huge advantage here it optimizing the system to their space and preference but suffer the most from expectation bias.
.......and don't forget psychological association which has a lot to do with all of this.....the older we get, the more nostalgic and remeniscent we become.......'those were the days' lol.
Who's going to prove everything just so they can plausibly argue that they don't like it, who has the time? As long as I accept that I may not be doing it right (or maybe I am). The onus of proof is right and good and who can argue with that, and it sure takes the sting out of the discussions.
Well said Allen
I agree, no need for a retraction 2 seconds after insulting everyone's intelligence. Well done, you just put yourself on a very low step on the ladder. Your statements now mean zero to a lot of people. Cheerio
I can't figure out if it was in a deliberate attempt to flaunt your differences with Earl, Lynn, that you chose to discuss colouration in detail as the basis of your grasp of sound quality, when replying to Earl's post that calls it an absurd and I'll-defined term.
I'm with Earl on this one. I hope you don't think it clarifies your unclear RMAF communication, to describe all the different types of colouration you can detect?
Very well said!
Here's one such measurement that I made a while back while working on the passive crossover for my own system.
Thanks
Attachments
Last edited:
Having sat next to you at RMAF demos, I trust your hearing.
I know only 3 or 4 other people with hearing skills as fine as yours. One would suppose the skills are learned for the most part, however most of us have not learned them.Many people brag about their hearing in terms of high end extension. "I can hear up to 22 kHz" or similar brags. Or conversely, "I can't hear above 13K anymore". To me, that's just numbers. The few people I know with extraordinary listening skills can identify crossover points, slopes, hear distortions and identify them, easily pick out stylus mistracking, understand harmonics and phase, things like that. To me, that is real hearing skills.
Of course you'll find plenty of people across the web who deny those skills exist.
I'd like to report on a test that I had run while Manager of Advanced Audio at Ford Motor.
The test involved the repeated judgments of our "expert/golden ears" listening panel. It was a sort of "gauge capability study", which any quality control engineer will realize is the first requirement for good quality, you must have capable gauges or you don't know what you have.
In this study the evaluators were asked to rate (blind) many binaural recorded systems of various cars over several listening sessions done using our in-house Head Acoustics system and played back in a special sound room with an augmented LF capability (since LF tactile response not available through electrostatic headphones is very important.)
In this test of ten participants, all of whom considered themselves to be expert listeners, only two were found to be stable, i.e. only two could be relied upon to have valid and consistent evaluations - gauge capable. Again, they ALL claimed to be experts.
I knew the two capable evaluators very well (I did not participate in this study) and one thing that has always stuck with me is that they both found the tasks very difficult and never "jumped" to a conclusion about their ratings. In other words only a conscious, deliberate and sustained evaluation on each test piece could ensure reliable judgments.
Basically, my "take-away' is this. 80% of the time someone claims a subjective judgment, it is probably wrong and anytime someone jumps to a judgment without a long and careful evaluation, it is also probably wrong.
At the same RMAF that I met Lynn, some guy walked into my room, listened for a few seconds and claimed (loudly) "nothing worthwhile listening to in here!" That was when I decided not to ever do another Hi-Fi show.
The test involved the repeated judgments of our "expert/golden ears" listening panel. It was a sort of "gauge capability study", which any quality control engineer will realize is the first requirement for good quality, you must have capable gauges or you don't know what you have.
In this study the evaluators were asked to rate (blind) many binaural recorded systems of various cars over several listening sessions done using our in-house Head Acoustics system and played back in a special sound room with an augmented LF capability (since LF tactile response not available through electrostatic headphones is very important.)
In this test of ten participants, all of whom considered themselves to be expert listeners, only two were found to be stable, i.e. only two could be relied upon to have valid and consistent evaluations - gauge capable. Again, they ALL claimed to be experts.
I knew the two capable evaluators very well (I did not participate in this study) and one thing that has always stuck with me is that they both found the tasks very difficult and never "jumped" to a conclusion about their ratings. In other words only a conscious, deliberate and sustained evaluation on each test piece could ensure reliable judgments.
Basically, my "take-away' is this. 80% of the time someone claims a subjective judgment, it is probably wrong and anytime someone jumps to a judgment without a long and careful evaluation, it is also probably wrong.
At the same RMAF that I met Lynn, some guy walked into my room, listened for a few seconds and claimed (loudly) "nothing worthwhile listening to in here!" That was when I decided not to ever do another Hi-Fi show.
As a recording/mixing engineer a long time ago in a studio far far away...
A group of us were sitting around the mixing console, critically listening over a variety of monitor systems, to a final mix as were debating on a subtle eq change before committing the mix to 2 track tape.
On the mixing desk are 24 identical channel strips, with a variety of controls that can manipulate the sound. In this case, I was engaging and disengaging the eq in real time as the mix is playing.
On one of the passes, I was facing away from the console looking at my team of critical listeners and suggesting which one do they like better as I was engaging and disengaging the eq, not saying if the eq was enaged or not. If you have ever looked at a mixing console, there are a lot of switches, knobs, and pushbuttons, so it is not easy for someone to visually see if the eq is engaged or not, unless you are right over the channel strip.
As I was engaging and disengaging the eq, we all agreed that one sounded better than the other. However, when I looked at the console, I was engaging and disengaging the eq on the wrong channel strip - one that did not have the music going through it.
I swear I heard the sound change when I was engaging/disengaging the eq, as did my team of critical listeners. But that simply was not real.
A group of us were sitting around the mixing console, critically listening over a variety of monitor systems, to a final mix as were debating on a subtle eq change before committing the mix to 2 track tape.
On the mixing desk are 24 identical channel strips, with a variety of controls that can manipulate the sound. In this case, I was engaging and disengaging the eq in real time as the mix is playing.
On one of the passes, I was facing away from the console looking at my team of critical listeners and suggesting which one do they like better as I was engaging and disengaging the eq, not saying if the eq was enaged or not. If you have ever looked at a mixing console, there are a lot of switches, knobs, and pushbuttons, so it is not easy for someone to visually see if the eq is engaged or not, unless you are right over the channel strip.
As I was engaging and disengaging the eq, we all agreed that one sounded better than the other. However, when I looked at the console, I was engaging and disengaging the eq on the wrong channel strip - one that did not have the music going through it.
I swear I heard the sound change when I was engaging/disengaging the eq, as did my team of critical listeners. But that simply was not real.
Having sat next to you at RMAF demos, I trust your hearing.
I don't trust anybody's hearing or delusions over my own! Why would anybody? I know the magazines brainwashed "high end" audiophiles well .. I know I used to read that stuff and it really made me stupid and unaware of what I felt was "right" about sound reproduction. To me it's about building for me.. selfish? So what.
That's the wonderful thing about stories, they are like speakers - everyone has a least two.
I have anecdotes that are just the opposite, not self proclaimed experts, didn't know they were being tested, made the judgements quickly and surprisingly accurately. What you gonna do? We all want to believe in our own personal experiences.
I have anecdotes that are just the opposite, not self proclaimed experts, didn't know they were being tested, made the judgements quickly and surprisingly accurately. What you gonna do? We all want to believe in our own personal experiences.
Maybe he was one of those Floyd Toole followers that liked speakers with wide horizontal dispersion
