Yes, This Experimental Outcome Is For Real........
Millwood, I do not understand your negative stance here.
I mentioned that I did a single 'easily reversible modification' to a complete audio system.
The outcome of eight experimental trials was that during four trials with the system temporarily modified, two particular windows rattled during exactly the same musical passages, and during four trials with the system in unmodified condition, no windows rattled during any part of the musical passages concerned.
The duration of this testing was around 25 minutes, no conditions internal to the house were changed, and the wind and the weather conditions outside did not change.
In my understanding the only difference accountable for the change in the audio output of the system sufficient to cause the windows to rattle was the one particular 'easily reversible modification' to the system.
Millwood, if you can, please explain to me how this 'easily reversible modification' showing 100% correlation with definitively observed aural artifacts should not be regarded as the causitive element.
Please also understand that this testing was held in the company of an extremely experienced and well regarded audio designer and long term audio manufacturer.
Eric.
Millwood, I do not understand your negative stance here.
I mentioned that I did a single 'easily reversible modification' to a complete audio system.
The outcome of eight experimental trials was that during four trials with the system temporarily modified, two particular windows rattled during exactly the same musical passages, and during four trials with the system in unmodified condition, no windows rattled during any part of the musical passages concerned.
The duration of this testing was around 25 minutes, no conditions internal to the house were changed, and the wind and the weather conditions outside did not change.
In my understanding the only difference accountable for the change in the audio output of the system sufficient to cause the windows to rattle was the one particular 'easily reversible modification' to the system.
Millwood, if you can, please explain to me how this 'easily reversible modification' showing 100% correlation with definitively observed aural artifacts should not be regarded as the causitive element.
Please also understand that this testing was held in the company of an extremely experienced and well regarded audio designer and long term audio manufacturer.
Eric.
Re: Yes, This Experimental Outcome Is For Real........
that's too easy, Eric: my buddy, his barber and I did this yesterday in our house. Our windows definitely didn't rattle. Also, my neighbor said it was impossible for the windows to rattle, leads in or not.
so you see, sensible people say that it couldn't have happen so whatever you heard must be wrong.
End of the proof,
.
You see, Eric, you cannot have it both ways. Either you come here with rigorous tests, or you don't have the rights to demand what you are demanding.
mrfeedback said:
that's too easy, Eric: my buddy, his barber and I did this yesterday in our house. Our windows definitely didn't rattle. Also, my neighbor said it was impossible for the windows to rattle, leads in or not.
so you see, sensible people say that it couldn't have happen so whatever you heard must be wrong.
End of the proof,
.You see, Eric, you cannot have it both ways. Either you come here with rigorous tests, or you don't have the rights to demand what you are demanding.
What you have there is still an anecdote. Now, you might be perfectly happy with what you've done and feel that, in your mind, the issue is settled. And that's absolutely your right. But you don't have an actual experiment or actual data; you've left some major variables uncontrolled and it cannot be replicated or otherwise verified.
If you want to do an actual experiment, I'll be happy to give you a protocol that includes better control of variables. If you follow the protocol, you could even get it published in a reputable journal and make a nice name for yourself. But if you're not interested in doing the hard and tedious work involved in doing a proper experiment, I completely understand. Not many people like to go through the process. Building stuff and listening to music is a lot more fun.
If you want to do an actual experiment, I'll be happy to give you a protocol that includes better control of variables. If you follow the protocol, you could even get it published in a reputable journal and make a nice name for yourself. But if you're not interested in doing the hard and tedious work involved in doing a proper experiment, I completely understand. Not many people like to go through the process. Building stuff and listening to music is a lot more fun.
Hi,
From a scientific POV? Certainly.
As I said before, never in my longstanding experience with audio have I been wrong in my aproach either, scientific or not ....
After so many years it almost becomes a science all of its own...
How does one prove scientifically that a Holco (NOS non-magnetic) resistor sounds mellow and dull?
Still to all and sundry it does...So is it or isn't it sounding dull?
Remember it's just a resistor and as such should have any other attributes.
I'm all for a scientific approach but the way I see it it's not science improving audio but listeners.
Sometimes you just need to think beyond commonly accepted knowledge to see what can happen...
I very much realise it's like walking on thin ice but so far I think we won already, like it or not.
The proof is in the history of audio over the past thirty years, scientific or not.
Cheers,
From a scientific POV? Certainly.
As I said before, never in my longstanding experience with audio have I been wrong in my aproach either, scientific or not ....
After so many years it almost becomes a science all of its own...
How does one prove scientifically that a Holco (NOS non-magnetic) resistor sounds mellow and dull?
Still to all and sundry it does...So is it or isn't it sounding dull?
Remember it's just a resistor and as such should have any other attributes.
I'm all for a scientific approach but the way I see it it's not science improving audio but listeners.
Sometimes you just need to think beyond commonly accepted knowledge to see what can happen...
I very much realise it's like walking on thin ice but so far I think we won already, like it or not.
The proof is in the history of audio over the past thirty years, scientific or not.
Cheers,
SY said:
Sure, right now I am relating an anecdote, and that will have to do for now.
Which are the 'major' uncontrolled variables that you mention ?.
I fully intend to do full and verifiable testing in the near future, and yes probably publish it, and I don't consider this as work at all.
I intend in the next week or so to do some testing of several audio cables with real musical passages, and envision that I do sends and returns via a high quality outboard A/D-D/A convertor box and record to HD the returned passages.
I then intend to compare these files and then analyse the differences for spectral, amplitude and phase content.
Anybody have software that can do this ?.
Eric.
Here's a fatal one: the guy who makes the judgement "rattle" or "no rattle" knows what cord is in place and (presumably) has control of the volume knob and other system/room variables.
One way is a controlled listening test. A controlled listening test. A controlled listening test. Another is to do a controlled spectral analysis.
Hi,
Good...An uncontrolled listening tests spanning thousands of listeners is therefore still an uncontrolled test but...Since most listeners were not even aware of testing anything and spontaneously reported similar findings we found the Holco to sound dull.
Not so scientific, I'd agree but...It's result should qualify as a scientific test bed I'd say? Random testing in large field...
Certainly, but has anyone actually performed said test?
After all we're talking about the perceived sonic character of a single passive component, a resistor no less.
Cheers,
Good...An uncontrolled listening tests spanning thousands of listeners is therefore still an uncontrolled test but...Since most listeners were not even aware of testing anything and spontaneously reported similar findings we found the Holco to sound dull.
Not so scientific, I'd agree but...It's result should qualify as a scientific test bed I'd say? Random testing in large field...
Certainly, but has anyone actually performed said test?
After all we're talking about the perceived sonic character of a single passive component, a resistor no less.
Cheers,
"Here's a fatal one: the guy who makes the judgement "rattle" or "no rattle" knows what cord is in place and (presumably) has control of the volume knob and other system/room variables."
Knowing which cord is in place does/did not effect any judgement regarding hearing the windows rattle - it really was clear cut and dried that the window rattled quite loudly with the cord in place, and not the merest hint of window rattle with the cord out of circuit.
The volume control is digital and was not changed - the procedure was to turn off the power amplifier, turn off the wall switch and insert or remove the master power cord into the wall socket, and turn the wall switch back on and then the power amplifier back on.
All settings of the volume controller restored to previous settings on power up, and the only remaining task was to set the CDP to the appropriate track.
The power down, insert/remove power lead and re-power the system process took all of 25 seconds each time so there were no longbreaks between trials.
Without an independant control witness, this experiment was as vigorous as can be.
Eric.
Knowing which cord is in place does/did not effect any judgement regarding hearing the windows rattle - it really was clear cut and dried that the window rattled quite loudly with the cord in place, and not the merest hint of window rattle with the cord out of circuit.
The volume control is digital and was not changed - the procedure was to turn off the power amplifier, turn off the wall switch and insert or remove the master power cord into the wall socket, and turn the wall switch back on and then the power amplifier back on.
All settings of the volume controller restored to previous settings on power up, and the only remaining task was to set the CDP to the appropriate track.
The power down, insert/remove power lead and re-power the system process took all of 25 seconds each time so there were no longbreaks between trials.
Without an independant control witness, this experiment was as vigorous as can be.
Eric.
Hi,
Absolutely, completely unscientific in the commonly known way.
But I do often laugh at science too, does anyone set up an audio rig in a proven scientific way?
Do our most talented audio designers worry about what science have to say about their siblings?
While I respect science I more often than not leave it for what it is and move on to whatever science I think sits right and again, I don't use much more than common sense.
I trust science to pick up later, in the meantime I enjoy and try to convince others to try out what I found out and found repeatedly so.
More often than not the feedback is positive, twenty years later it becomes science so, why worry today?
That is what I think Eric is trying to say anyway...
I also feel it's the spirit of the forum, its " raison d'etre" if you like.
Looking for his sense of humour...
Absolutely, completely unscientific in the commonly known way.
But I do often laugh at science too, does anyone set up an audio rig in a proven scientific way?
Do our most talented audio designers worry about what science have to say about their siblings?
While I respect science I more often than not leave it for what it is and move on to whatever science I think sits right and again, I don't use much more than common sense.
I trust science to pick up later, in the meantime I enjoy and try to convince others to try out what I found out and found repeatedly so.
More often than not the feedback is positive, twenty years later it becomes science so, why worry today?
That is what I think Eric is trying to say anyway...
I also feel it's the spirit of the forum, its " raison d'etre" if you like.
Looking for his sense of humour...
Hi Frank,
I follow you on the Holco resistor observations.
Ever wondered why it is that when these kinds of observations are related that all kinds of experts will come out of the woodwork and argue that these findings are impossible ?.
Millwood, you seem to regard yourself as a statistics expert.
In your infinite knowlege of the subject do you know of software that will analyse differences in audio (wav) files ?.
Eric.
I follow you on the Holco resistor observations.
Ever wondered why it is that when these kinds of observations are related that all kinds of experts will come out of the woodwork and argue that these findings are impossible ?.
Millwood, you seem to regard yourself as a statistics expert.
In your infinite knowlege of the subject do you know of software that will analyse differences in audio (wav) files ?.
Eric.
millwood said:
Ok, but as I see it there are NO variables except the power cord involved.
Let me assure you that the windows were not rattling trivially - more like loud, clear and unmistakeable.
Resonance of the windows in this case is a clear indicator that the acoustic output of the system changed, and sure, it does not give an indication of the degree of change, but it does indicate that there was enough change to cause the resonance of the windows to be excited for extended periods (15 seconds and more).
Increasing the level of the non-modified system by 1 dB did not excite this windows resonance during any part of the musical passage concerned.
If an indepentant person was to verify that the only change to the system was the power cord, would this make this experiment valid, and if not, why not ?.
Eric.
Eric.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.