| mrfeedback |
There was a thread running about Bybee quantum purifiers and now there seems to be no trace - What's happened ?.
Eric. |
|
|
| dhaen |
| It's been moved away until I have time to sort through it and remove any allegations, name calling and threats. Such posting contribute nothing to audio diy :cop: |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Not so much enjoying it but hoping to have a sensible discussion with JC etc, but noise makers keep getting in the way and spoiling it for all as usual.
Is it possible to have an SE free zone somewhere ?.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Hi John,
Justin and I did the show with my cables Friday night, and we will do the same next Friday night.
Justin had some other band to engineer Saturday night, but without my leads or me and he was not looking forward to it after what we achieved Friday night - I have not spoken to him about his Saturday night show yet.
The Friday night band are friends of mine and are especially good, and every sound guy enjoys to engineer them.
We have a settings problem with the system to iron out before next week and then we will be able to go for broke - after the show we worked out that the electronic crossover box was set to limit the mids 6dB before the highs or lows.
During the show we had a HUGE, CLEAN and DYNAMIC sound that we could have run rather harder (louder and even bigger) except that vocals/mids went into limiting and reduced in aparent level thus changing overall sound balance when increasing the master FOH faders too far.
We did things like pull other midrange sources down in the mix to allow more room for the vocals, and this worked well enough for the night, but next week we will have this limitation removed and then we can have even more fun.
Previous experiments have produced really nicely cleanly musical results that allow systems to go to sustained extreme levels and very interestingly without causing ear fatigue or ringing, and more than one listener has commented on this.
I am looking forward to next Friday night.
Eric.
These guys can really belt out a tune. |
|
|
| SimontY |
| quote: | | Is it possible to have an SE free zone somewhere ? |
hehe, naughty naughty! ;)
| quote: | | without causing ear fatigue or ringing |
Maybe you could fly over here and get rid of the ear fatigue and ringing from my system... Cutting a hole in the midrange only half fixes it, heh. (last trick tried!)
Anyway, back to the old topic. You're saying that these incredible improvements are due solely to these Byebee type devices you have knocked up?
-Simon |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Yes, and fine tuning which is made easier.
Eric. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Hi Eric,
I had been of the mindset that recording engineers were involved in the tough job of capturing a performance and converting sound to eletricity. I forgot about the everyday work people like you are involved with creating a live performance to begin with. You have to keep the crowd happy, the house manager happy, and the band happy. And every one tends to like it loud. No easy feat (but I don't need to tell you that). Great to hear about a great performance. There is no audio like a live music. Keep at it.
JF |
|
|
| Variac |
| quote: | | Is it possible to have an SE free zone somewhere ? |
I think it is important to have him remind us all that you guys aren't necessarily right - otherwise we are on the way to putting our photos in the freezer.. There is no doubt that audiophiles DO fall for stuff that is worthless, all people that are more open minded (or closed minded depending on your view!) are the first to fall for BS .
You COULD just ignore him, and continue your discussion around him easily, but some of you have huge, desperate egos and have to argue every point. Perhaps you guys could consider maturing a bit while the thread is away.
If you guys had children, you certainly wouldn't let them act in such a matter... |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
If the band is good the rest is a whole lot easier.
Getting foldback good makes the band happy and this translates into their performance which makes the audience happy. :nod:
A happy audience drinks more and this makes the manager happy. :drink:
Good system sound and system dynamics keep us sound guys happy - we are mixing the sound for ourselves don't forget. :devily:
If the sound is good then it gets even better when louder up to a sensible limit of course.
Good sound and loud are often mutually exclusive, and some bad engineers don't understand this and just crank it regardless.
Justin and I insist on hifi sound without harshness and this is what we are achieving and quite spectacularly.
I lost count of how many signed CD copies the band sold the other night - always a good indicator of crowd enjoyment.
Also there were rousing cheers, clapping and whistles from the crowd after every song.
Next week will be even more fun.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
The problem is that there are observations that we KNOW we are right about and SE keeps intruding and running threads off track and effectively destroying them.
If he were to butt out sometimes these threads would develop in a fruitful way and much useful information could be fleshed out and shared.
I am frankly sick to ****ing death of hearing about stupid photographs in bloody freezers, and idiotic argument based on this kind of ****, and his consistent belief that everybody else on the planet is imagining things that they are hearing.
I read an interesting article about 'negative mood disorder' that describes SE's social interactions very closely, and further shows that those in a negative outlook are unable when in this condition to assimilate information correctly.
The likes of Frank and JC and myself are far too experienced to allow ourselves to be deluded by apearances or marketing, and use our ears as the only arbiter.
SE is by his attitude precluding himself from this simple skill.
Eric. |
|
|
| SimontY |
| quote: | | I read an interesting article about 'negative mood disorder' |
Wow, I think a friend of mine has that, except to be fair, its usually after 10 pints of lager it kicks in... It seems the only voice he can hear is his own, and the only argument he understands is his own! We once had an argument about plug blocks, and potential fire risks, this was in the 1st year of university. We actually fell out over it and someone physically removed him from the room. lol. His argument was based on reading one article in one magazine. Where did that get him?!?
Actually, I don't know what I'm saying here, guess I thought it would be funny...
-Simon |
|
|
| Variac |
The photos in the freezer are used as an example that everyone can agree on as going too far. It requires you to admit that there is such a thing as going too far. That provides one limit, the people claiming that every amp sounds the same are the other limit. In between there is stuff that is real and stuff that is imaginary. There is no doubt in my mind that you are fooling yourself on some things and are absolutely correct on others.
Until you can admit that you are fooling yourself on some things, then you are fooling yourself absolutely. When you are dealing with something as subtle as some of these things are, you are going to make mistakes...
He only runs the thread off track because people like Frank take the bait and start arguing the point. In fact he is doing a slight service if he posts in each thread and reminds people some of this has to be taken sceptically. At least he doesn't post tons of photos like Fred does when he tries to ruin a thread....
What you want is a closed system of believers. A cult. Then you can take an idea to any extreme and nobody will disagree with you. Blood sacrifices improve high response? oh yes , absolutely. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
The problem is that there are observations that we KNOW we are right about and SE keeps intruding and running threads off track and effectively destroying them.
If he were to butt out sometimes these threads would develop in a fruitful way and much useful information could be fleshed out and shared.
I |
The problem is rather that it is impossible to have a frutful discussion
when people like you make such ignorant claims. And don't
give me that **** again about this being beyond my
epxerience. The fault with your argumentation has nothing
to do with the particular topic disussed, in this case audio.
It would be just as ignorant (I could add other less polite
invectives, but I see no point in being inpolite) if you were
discussing french wines, tropical fishes or whatever. The
problem is not with some of us lacking you listening experiences
and skills, but with with your ignorance of certain elementary
logic, psychology and philosophy of science.
Maybe it is actually just a matter of semantics, and you
dont really mean "we know" but rather " we are convinced",
but then why not write that so we can avoid these endless and
pointless discussions and so you don't throw away all your
credibility, or whatever remains of it? There are many others
who can and do report subjective findings in a humble and
polite way as just that, their own subjective findings and leave
it up to others to make what they want of it. I don't know if
this is the case with you, but an insistence on trying to impose
ones owns beliefs as facts upon others very often signals that
the person in question is actually rather not very convinced at
all and has to try convincing others comfort him-/herself.
Let's take an analogy.
some people "know" for a fact that there is no god.
Others "know" for a fact that there is a single god which is the
Christian god. Yet others "know" for a fact that there is a single
god called Allah, a few of which are even prepared to blow up scyscrapers and kill thousands of people because they are so
convinced of this "fact", Yet other "know " that there are
many gods called Krisha, Shiva etc. Yet others .... The problem
is that none of these people can prove to the others that what they "know" is the one correct answer. I am very confident that
the very large majority of people are content with treating their
religious opinions as personal beliefs, possibly convincing to
themselves, but not trying to claim these beliefs to be a universal
truth. Disclaimer: This last paragraph is not meant as disrespect
to any religion or any particular individuals religious beliefs, but
is only meant as an analogy to show how unreasonable it is
to mix up beliefs with knowledge. If various peoples knowledge
are inconsistent, then there is no knowledge at all, until we can
somehow ascertain one these different knowledges as the single
true one.
I have said it before, and I repeat it again. I have absolutely
nothing against people reporting their subjective findings, to
the contraty, I welcome it, as long as it is done in an honest,
polite and humble way. Even though I remain sceptical towards
many claims of audibility, I do not dismiss them entirely except
for the most extreme ones, like the photos in the freezer. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
You have repeatedly missed bits like "I reckon, or I believe, or I have found" etc as cues that I am talking about subjectives.
I thought that this is about as humble as possible.
Don't even try to make me believe that 3 band members, 2 sound guys and my girlfriend were all self deluded on Friday night.
Add to that the 5 people who came up to the console and strongly complimented the cleanness, clarity and niceness of the sound.
Oh, and don't forget the audience who were the blind-test subjects who were very clearly showing their happiness at the whole performance.
Oh, and the blind-test bar manager who just came up and straight out said "That was the best sound that I have ever heard in this room, great guys, just great, thanks."
All that with a few leads patched into a big system, and some of you trying to tell me that cables etc can make no differences to a system - wake up and start listening properly.
Eric. |
|
|
| JOE DIRTŪ |
I can vouch for Eric....I have wired numerous large clubs for audio/vidieo and the improvement was VERY noticable
DIRTŪ |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by JOE DIRTŪ
[B]I can vouch for Eric....B] |
Everything Eric has written, or something specific (i.e. the directionality of wire, the type of wire, Bybees, soldering techniques, or ???)?
Eric's idea of creating a directionless wire is intriguing and easy to do (if nothing else two parallel wires cuts the resistance in half). I just wonder if that is the central concept.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
All that with a few leads patched into a big system, and some of you trying to tell me that cables etc can make no differences to a system - wake up and start listening properly. |
So you're telling us that all you did was patch a few leads into a big system, turned on the power, left all controls set to where they were before you arrived and that was it?
se |
|
|
| kuribo |
Your "evidence" is a bar full of patrons??? Spent enough time in a bar to know the ladies always look better at closing time, and the music always sounds better with a few beers....Get real.
And, I would say that SE is one of the few posters presenting a logical, scientifically based argument. We need a BS meter; I for one appreciate the efforts he makes to debunk the illogical, unscientific, and groundless claims made by oh too many charlatans.
I have read enough of his posts to understand that he isn't about to argue about subjective perceptions; if you think that Bybees sound great, then good for you. And if you don't have the education or knowledge to argue the science, then get out of the way.... |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuribo
Your "evidence" is a bar full of patrons??? |
Eric's work probably keeps him busy. Being within a room of people that like what they hear is how he experiences proof of his efforts. It's proof to him. Nothing wrong with that. In lieu of most of us not presenting any proof for anything else, I appreciate his sharing his experience. I don't read that he expects us to accept it as proof. Steve is asking for proof (from any of the can-hear-a-difference crowd). As I read his posts, in lieu of any other "evidence", Eric is simply sharing his experiences. Give him some credit (he is not getting much help from others).
And I think it's an overgeneralization to say that people are there only for beer and sex (though that certainly is an aspect of such a venue, or any venue actually). Most people have some level of an appreciation for music and have ways to communicate if they like what they hear, or not. If you were there, could you not appreciate the music (because of the beer and opposite sex)? Of course, Eric's posts are not proof for me of how well the patch cords worked, though maybe it's a starting point. I haven't ruled out that I might learn something here.
JF |
|
|
| kuribo |
| My point had nothing to do with what people were there for, but that a room full of people drinking alcohol, a substance well known for altering perception (eg, the girls look better at closing time), is not exactly the sort of testimonial I would put much faith in. I imagine we have all done things, thought things, saw things, heard things, under the influence of alcohol, in a bar environment, that we wake up to the next day and can't believe...My point is, it is simply not the kind of environment from which one can draw any sort of reliable conclusions, other than people enjoyed the music. Which they may have regardless... |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So you're telling us that all you did was patch a few leads into a big system, turned on the power, left all controls set to where they were before you arrived and that was it?
se |
Yes initially, and we both noted the same differences on pre-recorded music (CD) - deeper and clearer lows, clearer mids, more extended and clearer highs.
After that we were able to tune the monitors a whole lot better than previous, and then we were able to tune the FOH sound a whole lot better than before.
This is normal setup procedure and we got a much bigger and nicer result than previously.
The band told me that the monitors were great, and that they had a great on-stage sound.
I have spoken to Justin since and he reports the different show that he did on Saturday was good, but not the same dynamics, power, clarity and niceness as Friday night - and his ears were tired and shut down after.
There have been other shows with same results.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuribo
Your "evidence" is a bar full of patrons??? Spent enough time in a bar to know the ladies always look better at closing time, and the music always sounds better with a few beers....Get real.
|
Hehehe. I remember once some years ago not at a bar, but at a BBS party (back in the day of dialup computer BBSes, it was common for users to get together for parties, etc.) a rather impromtu "band" some of us had formed performed Mother from Pink Floyd's The Wall (I did vocals and lead guitar).
Afterward several people walked (staggered?) up to me and said "Dewd! That sounded just like it came off the record!"
So there ya have it. I can sing and play guitar just as good as David Gilmour. :D
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Sound engineering and excessive alcohol do not mix and it is seen as extremely bad form to be seen getting drunk on the job - Justin and I had two drinks each all night.
This band play rocking blues, and attract a generally more mature audience - mid thirties and up.
Many of these people are there for music appreciation and a pleasant night out, and not to get blind drunk or bag a stray root - many couples were there and drink driving laws are a big factor nowadays in general sobriety in the audience.
When multiple reasonably sober people are telling you that they are liking what they hear (including listeners who have heard this band many times) they are saying so for a reason.
Objective measurements are of course useful for explaining observations, but subjectively good sound is what it is all about, and what the audience hears.
Are there any Perth members here who can make it to the Indie Bar on Friday nights ? - none of you know what you are missing out on.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
You have repeatedly missed bits like "I reckon, or I believe, or I have found" etc as cues that I am talking about subjectives.
I thought that this is about as humble as possible.
|
I was referring to the following claim yo made, which should
be clear since I quoted it.
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
The problem is that there are observations that we KNOW we are right about ... |
I have also frequently seen similar claims in previous postings
by you on the forum.
| quote: |
... and some of you trying to tell me that cables etc can make no differences to a system - wake up and start listening properly.
|
If you are referring to me, I have never claimed that, and I
even repeated such a disclaimer in my previous posting, but
maybe you didn't make it to the end of what I wrote? |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Yes initially, and we both noted the same differences on pre-recorded music (CD) - deeper and clearer lows, clearer mids, more extended and clearer highs.
After that we were able to tune the monitors a whole lot better than previous, and then we were able to tune the FOH sound a whole lot better than before.
This is normal setup procedure and we got a much bigger and nicer result than previously.
The band told me that the monitors were great, and that they had a great on-stage sound. |
Ok, so what these people experienced WASN'T just the result of your "few leads patched into a big system" but ALSO your tweaking and tuning of the monitors and FOH system. Which you say was tweaked and tuned differently than it had been previously.
Therefore, these people would have experienced a DIFFERENT sound compared to previously even if your "few leads patched into a big system" HADN'T been patched into the system.
Um, so how do you know that you wouldn't have got the exact same response from these people had you simply tuned the monitors and FOH system differently (i.e. the same way you had it for Friday night) but left out the "few leads patched into a big system"?
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
When multiple reasonably sober people are telling you that they are liking what they hear (including listeners who have heard this band many times) they are saying so for a reason. |
But the reason could have been the simple fact that the monitors and FOH system were tweaked and tuned differently than previously and that your "few leads patched into a big system" had nothing to do with their reaction at all.
When you change multiple variables at the same time, you can't tell which variable(s) are responsible for the observed effect.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Eric's work probably keeps him busy. Being within a room of people that like what they hear is how he experiences proof of his efforts. It's proof to him. Nothing wrong with that. In lieu of most of us not presenting any proof for anything else, I appreciate his sharing his experience. I don't read that he expects us to accept it as proof. Steve is asking for proof (from any of the can-hear-a-difference crowd). As I read his posts, in lieu of any other "evidence", Eric is simply sharing his experiences. Give him some credit (he is not getting much help from others).
And I think it's an overgeneralization to say that people are there only for beer and sex (though that certainly is an aspect of such a venue, or any venue actually). Most people have some level of an appreciation for music and have ways to communicate if they like what they hear, or not. If you were there, could you not appreciate the music (because of the beer and opposite sex)? Of course, Eric's posts are not proof for me of how well the patch cords worked, though maybe it's a starting point. I haven't ruled out that I might learn something here.
JF |
Thanks John,
Yes I am only sharing subjective experiences, and it seems that some around are unfortunately unable to grasp this.
One proof of audibility is an experienced fellow sound guy immediately saying that he hears differences and describing them in the same terms as others .
Another proof of audibility is professional musicians saying that they hear the same differences in their instruments and stating that they find this much preferable - that means several professional audio people are hearing differences and describing them similarly.
I really am beginning to believe that either some members here are totally tone deaf, and just want to make useless argument, or both.
Sensible and sensitive members I have infinite time for.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
But the reason could have been the simple fact that the monitors and FOH system were tweaked and tuned differently than previously and that your "few leads patched into a big system" had nothing to do with their reaction at all.
When you change multiple variables at the same time, you can't tell which variable(s) are responsible for the observed effect.
se |
You need to read this bit again - "Yes initially, and we both noted the same differences on pre-recorded music (CD) - deeper and clearer lows, clearer mids, more extended and clearer highs. "
Sure changing more than one variable is at work here, but the overall result was better than we have been able to attain previously, and as reported to me by Justin, the same system with the same tuning did not have the same musicality the next night.
Steve, I do know what I am hearing OK.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Yes I am only sharing subjective experiences, and it seems that some around are unfortunately unable to grasp this.
|
I think you are turning things around. Those of us whom you
are probably referring to have no problema at all to grasp
this. To the contrarty, we are fully convinced that it is subjective
findings you are reporting. The problem is that we frequently
see you reporting them in a way that seems to indicate that
you yourself do not think of them as subjective findings. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
When multiple listeners report the same subjective findings, that counts as proof of audibility to me.
Eric. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
The problem is that we frequently
see you reporting them in a way that seems to indicate that
you yourself do not think of them as subjective findings. |
Eric has no control of how others read his posts (of course, that is also a subjective experience). It is possible that people read into them more (and less) than his is expects.
So, he just stated, "I am only sharing subjective experiences". Try reading his posts that way. If you hadn't in the past, try now.
Part of why he may seem more strongly about this is that he is actively working with others that subjectively experience similiar things (and again that is his experience). So he is in a way, expressing the subjective feelings of a group of people. Still not "proof", but lends a bit more credibility to his "story".
JF |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
When multiple listeners report the same subjective findings, that counts as proof of audibility to me.
Eric. |
OK, fair enough when you state it clearly like this. However,
since you often make claims without saying it is based on
this personal definition of proof, you must accept that you
confuse people who prefer to discuss things in terms of
generally agreed-upon terminology instead of guessing what
each individual mean by the words. I could decide to swap
the definitions of bass and treble when I post, but it would
cause a lot of confusion and people would get mad at me if
I insisted on making claims based on these personal definitions
of bass and treble without telling that I use them in a different
way than others. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
The difference between an idiot and a computer is that with a computer you only have to punch the information in once.
Christer, I am glad that you now at long last understand, so that I do not have to communicate with you at Kindergarten level in future - by all means correct me if I am wrong.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Eric has no control of how others read his posts (of course, that is also a subjective experience). It is possible that people read into them more (and less) than his is expects.
So, he just stated, "I am only sharing subjective experiences". Try reading his posts that way. If you hadn't in the past, try now.
Part of why he may seem more strongly about this is that he is actively working with others that subjectively experience similiar things (and again that is his experience). So he is in a way, expressing the subjective feelings of a group of people. Still not "proof", but lends a bit more credibility to his "story".
JF |
One problem is that Eric usually cannot comprehend other
peoples posts. He accuses people like Steve of causing mischief
when it is clear that he doesn't understand that Steve means
exactly what he writes, no more no less, but rather seems to
read a lot of strange things into it. He has also shown, both in
this and other threads, that he is incapable of, or refuses to,
understand what I write. He almost never tries to address what I
write when I "complain" about him, but rather starts discussing
other irrelevant things. In my opinion Eric is a person who often
causes mischief in threads like this one by his attitude towards
other people. Steve isn't, although I know there are a lot of
people who have a different opinion there.
Yes, I could just ignore the way he makes his claims, since I
know it is just subjective findings whatever he thinks himself
about them. However, his frequent arrogance towards people
not sharing his view is often very irritating in my opinion. I had
decided not to try discussing this with him again after an
unsuccessful attempt to do so a while ago. However, his
accusations of Steve as a troublemaker in this thread, when it
is, in my opinion, rather Eric himself causing the trouble made
me change my mind and make yet another attempt to try
explaining to Eric that it is, in my opinion, rather himself not
understanding what other people write. It was stupid of me
to do that, since I am obviously speaking to deaf ears, just as
last time I tried it. It seems the conclusion ends up the same
as last time, the only thing Eric and I seem to agree on is that
we disagree. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
The difference between an idiot and a computer is that with a computer you only have to punch the information in once.
Christer, I am glad that you now at long last understand, so that I do not have to communicate with you at Kindergarten level in future - by all means correct me if I am wrong.
Eric. |
So you have actually learned something then, since it is always
you who drag our discussions down to a Kindergarten level,
although I refuse to follow you down to that level. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
the only thing Eric and I seem to agree on is that
we disagree. |
That's not an uncommon starting point (or ending point). Next time things will be different.
JF |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
That's not an uncommon starting point (or ending point). Next time things will be different.
JF |
Normally yes, but with Eric I am starting to give up all hopes
of that, since he keeps insisting on misreading what I and many
others write and avoids discussing the actual issues we are
adressing and resort to personal insults and discussion of
other irrelevant things. :( |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Try again with a clean slate.
JF |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Christer when it is stated from the outset that that we are talking about subjective findings and experienced professional audio users subjective group findings at that, you ought to understand that we are not talking about findings from still wet behind the ears 17 year olds whose sum audio experience is Eminem on an Akai shelf system.
There are all kinds of suggestions from you and Steve that this group are deluded.
I think you are slow in understanding that us kinds of guys have heard so many different items of equipment that we don't care a hoot about appearances, marketing hype or price tag and instead rely on our own sonic judgements based on actual usage.
An interesting thing is that audio users at this level typically return common actual usage subjective findings, and expressed in the same kinds of terms and language.
What I am saying is that when groups of audio professionals are saying the same thing, there is pretty much always merit in what they are saying, and these findings are to be taken note of.
Christer, if you had at all read deeply enough to recognise this you would be asking questions about what kinds of differences we are reporting instead of going down the track that you have followed.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Try again with a clean slate.
JF |
I have made two attempts recently, and if he still seems not
to understand or doesn't want to understand, then I see no
point in making any further attempts for the moment. I am not
his teacher, he is not my student, so there is really no reason
to make any further attempts to explain to him what I have
been trying to say. |
|
|
| Christer |
Eric,
you are still either not understanding what I am discussing, or
you are deliberately avoiding to discuss it. Seem that once
again we'd better leave it at that and conclude that this is how it
is and that we cannot even agree on what we are discussing.
BTW, sure I could ask more questions about what differences
you hear, but I think you are already reporting quite a lot of
that, so I don't find a serious shortage of information about
that. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Christer, as I understand it you are, in the absence of objective measurements dismissing any validity of subjective findings.
Correct me if I am wrong, and just say it clearly and concisely.
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
Eric,
It actually depends on what you mean by dismissing validity.
I do not take a subjective finding as a proof of something
even if I am experiencing it myself. If I think I hear
a differnce I may consider it more or less plausible that there
is actually a difference, depending on circumstances etc. However,
I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt
a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind
test or other suitable proof method. On the other hand, I do
absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible
difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply
that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot
know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined
one. Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are
right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think
measurements can prove whether something is audible or
not since we do not know how to correlate measurements
to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or
other psychometric methods are probably necessary to
establish for sure if something is audible or not. On the other
hand, I do not require a proof that something works before
I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that
I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that
is, that it probably does work. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"It actually depends on what you mean by dismissing validity. I do not take a subjective finding as a proof of something even if I am experiencing it myself. If I think I hear a difference I may consider it more or less plausible that there is actually a difference, depending on circumstances etc.
That's when you get in and do a heap of A/B comparisons to practice and enhance your discrimination - a learned skill.
When you have developed sufficient skill you can detect changes reliably.
However, I would not say I am certain that there is beyond any doubt a difference unless this can be established with a proper blind test or other suitable proof method.
You have not learned to be reliably discriminating yet, and to trust your abilities.
Listeners with high levels of discrimination perform highly in blind tests, and novice listeners often do not - I find that novices do not know what to listen for and this reflects in their scores.
On the other hand, I do absolutely not rule out that there may be an actual audible difference just because there is no proof. The point is simply that as long as we have only subjective findings, we cannot know for sure if there is a real difference or just an imagined one.
If the samples are skilled and experienced listeners results in discriminating subjective differences is reliable.
Preferences is another matter - I spoke of Kimber teflon insulated cables - the dealer who supplied them likes them and describes them as "are very detailed in the mids"
I can't stand them because of what I regard as an un-natural mids empasis and teflon characteristic sonic hardness.
So, two people are describing the same sonic differences in subjectively different ways.
Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
With appropriate practice I'll bet you can.
I do not require measurements, in fact I do not even think measurements can prove whether something is audible or not since we do not know how to correlate measurements to perception. However, proofs in the form of blind tests or other psychometric methods are probably necessary to establish for sure if something is audible or not.
Two problems here - odd subjective findings that are hither to not measurable does not mean that they are not true.
More it means that appropriate testing methods need to be devised.
The other problem is that blind tests are most certainly not by definition reliable due to a bunch of reasons including skill levels of the listeners when examining fine differences.
On the other hand, I do not require a proof that something works before I consider using it if my subjective experience is such that I convince myself to a sufficient degree, sufficient for me that is, that it probably does work.
You should not be needing to convince yourself - with skill you should be able to discriminate differences quickly, and also quickly decide if you like such a new sound.
Sure, if you like the way something subjectively works then how it works is of little real importance.
Knowing how something works is useful for purposes other than sonic enjoyment.
Christer, do much more really fine level A/B comparison practicing (on the fly component changes are good for this), and learn to trust in yourself and your abilities. ;)
Eric. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
That's when you get in and do a heap of A/B comparisons to practice and enhance your discrimination - a learned skill.
When you have developed sufficient skill you can detect changes reliably.
|
Which is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim. You may believe
this to be the case, perhaps it is even the case, but AFAIK there
is no evidence of this claim being true.
| quote: |
You have not learned to be reliably discriminating yet, and to trust your abilities.
|
I agree I do not have that much training in this respect. However,
I would most certainly not trust my abilities to 100% however
much training I had. Why is it so impossible for you to accept
that it could just as well be you overestimating you discrimination
skills? I am not saying that is necessarily the case, but it
cannot be ruled out. Trusting onself beyond doubt in whatever
topic is usually just a sign one hasn't yet reached the level of
experience where one realizes that one isn't infallible.
| quote: |
Listeners with high levels of discrimination perform highly in blind tests, and novice listeners often do not - I find that novices do not know what to listen for and this reflects in their scores.
|
As long as there is something that can be detected, yes, then
training will most likely improve discrimination skills.
| quote: |
If the samples are skilled and experienced listeners results in discriminating subjective differences is reliable.
|
Same comment as to the first point. This is just an
unsubstantiated claim.
| quote: |
Preferences is another matter - I spoke of Kimber teflon insulated cables - the dealer who supplied them likes them and describes them as "are very detailed in the mids"
I can't stand them because of what I regard as an un-natural mids empasis and teflon characteristic sonic hardness.
So, two people are describing the same sonic differences in subjectively different ways.
|
Preferences is a different matter. That is necessarily subjective,
but unless there is an objective difference there is nothing to
have preferences about.
| quote: |
Psychological bias is a very real thing. I do think you are right that one can learn to reduce this effect, but I do not
think one can eliminate it or even reduce it to a "safe" level.
With appropriate practice I'll bet you can.
|
Would you be prepared to bet large sums on this. I think I
or someone else could earn some easy money here by setting up
some experiment. :)
| quote: |
Two problems here - odd subjective findings that are hither to not measurable does not mean that they are not true.
More it means that appropriate testing methods need to be devised.
|
Assuming there is actually an audible diffence, not just a
subjective one then I quite agree with this and have said
so myself a couple of times in other threads.
| quote: |
The other problem is that blind tests are most certainly not by definition reliable due to a bunch of reasons including skill levels of the listeners when examining fine differences.
|
That is a common argument and I do not necessarily dismiss
it. A typical controlled blind test may for instance introduce
stress factors that influences the results. This is why I said
blind test or other psycometric methods. I am not sure what
might be a suitable way of doing such tests. I think the setup
Steve, Frank and you are about to do is suitable and it seems
everybody agrees on this being a reasonable method.
| quote: |
Sure, if you like the way something subjectively works then how it works is of little real importance.
Knowing how something works is useful for purposes other than sonic enjoyment.
|
Quite agree on this, and even if it doesn't work but one thinks
it does it can give enjoyment. A placebo effect is also an effect.
However, even I think my health improves from takin sugar
pills, I should not recommend that as treatment for other people.
| quote: |
Christer, do much more really fine level A/B comparison practicing (on the fly component changes are good for this), and learn to trust in yourself and your abilities. ;)
|
But the question is, does one really learn to realiably discriminate
or does one learn to delude oneself. Some things are clearly
possible to discriminate, but other more subtle ones are more
problematic. How can we know if there is really something we
do hear or if we are just imagining, unless some kind of
experiment is conducted to settle the matter?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I note that as usual you focus all you comments on the learned
skills, which is not really the problem in my opinion. I commented
on this in another thread a few days ago, but I don't know if
you read that. For something to make an audible difference,
there are at least three things that must happen. 1) There must
be some physical difference (in the air pressure function) for
the ears to detect. If there is no such difference, then clearly
there can be no audible difference. 2) The physical ears must
have the capability to detect this difference such that it results
in a different stimulus pattern to the brain. If the stimuli are
the same, then the difference can't be audible. 3) The brain
must be able to process the stimuli patterns and recognize
the difference. The learned skills you talk about are only
applicable to part 3 in this chain, the brain, and I have absoluletly
no problem with that one. The brain can be trained to quite
extreme capabilities, at least in some individuals. I know this
from my own experience with other things than judging audio
equipment. However, the big question mark for me, and probably
for Steve and many others is with parts 1 and 2 in the chain,
and these are not things that can be trained. I think this is at
the root of many misunderstandings. You think we question your
ability to train your brain, while we, or I at least, rather question
parts 1 and 2 in the chain, which has nothing to do with trained
skills. If a certain change in the equipment results in exactly
the same air pressure variations at your ears as before the
change and you claim to hear a difference, then obviously this
is an imagination. So the big question about subtle things like
cable directionality, different resistor brands etc. is whether
the do cause a difference in parts 1 and 2 in the perception
change. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
"1) There must be some physical difference (in the air pressure function) for the ears to detect. If there is no such difference, then clearly there can be no audible difference."
Yes.
"2) The physical ears must have the capability to detect this difference such that it results in a different stimulus pattern to the brain. If the stimuli are the same, then the difference can't be audible."
Yes, but how are you to determine that these stimuli are in fact identical .
"3) The brain must be able to process the stimuli patterns and recognize the difference. The learned skills you talk about are only applicable to part 3 in this chain, the brain, and I have absoluletly no problem with that one. The brain can be trained to quite extreme capabilities, at least in some individuals."
The key thing to listen for when differentiating, is patterns in the sounds and the differences in these patterns - profound statement and please take note.
Understand that astronomy regularly picks seemingly hopelessly buried patterns out of what on first inspection appears as completely random noise.
Also understand that the brain is also very powerful at detecting patterns below the noise floor - this is the reason for digital dithering - ie randomising and thereby concealing low level errors.
I am saying that ear/brains can pick out stuff that standard test instruments cannot, so to rely only on test instrument results can be folly.
Delusion is not the only reason for all subjective findings, never has been and never will be.
Eric.
Anyway it still has not been shown to me why QP's cannot possibly have some kind of sonic effect on a system. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Christer,
I have a hard time getting through the long posts. However, I think it really odd that we require audio professionals to do blind tests. As you are aware, I enjoy orchestral music. I would think it odd to require violinists, trumpet players, the conductor, or composer to do blind tests of their instruments. If they want to do it, fine, it's their prerogative. Whatever way they want to create sound and music is up to them. If people wish to understand how they do it, it's up to the rest of us nuts. I think you are directing unreasonable burden towards Eric. Again, he is simply reporting what his group finds most musical.
JF |
|
|
| Christer |
Eric,
For part 2 of the chain, I didn't mean we should try to measure
or find out if there is a difference in stimuli. I simply wanted to
point out that if there is in in fact a difference in part 1, it must
be withing the capability of the ear to detect this difference.
For part 3, yes you are quite right that the brain can use
averaging dithering and all sorts of things to extract information
below the noise floor etc. I have read somewhere that skilled
radio surveillance operators can sometimes follow a conversation
some 40dB below the noise floor. Calling that impressive is
an undestatement, in my opiinion, so yes, the brain has quite
extraordinary capabilities. However, as I said previously, I am
not questioning the brain part of the chain. The interesting
thing with those subtle things some people claim audible,
direction of cables etc. is whether they actually can make a
difference in part 1 and 2 of the perception chain, since if
they cannot, then there is no audible difference however
good your brain is. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Christer,
I have a hard time getting through the long posts. However, I think it really odd that we require audio professionals to do blind tests. As you are aware, I enjoy orchestral music. I would think it odd to require violinists, trumpet players, the conductor, or composer to do blind tests of their instruments. If they want to do it, fine, it's their prerogative. Whatever way they want to create sound and music is up to them. If people wish to understand how they do it, it's up to the rest of us nuts. I think you are directing unreasonable burden towards Eric. Again, he is simply reporting what his group finds most musical.
|
I don't require them to do any blind tests, I am just saying that
without a blind test or other similar experiment there is no
evidence of the claims they make. Since Eric (and some others)
do claim certain things to be beyond doubt audible based on
the assumption on the perfection of his listening skills, and
his claim that he can avoid all psycological bias, which I think
no psychologist would agree with, he does have a proof burden
if he wants to insist on this. Is it even physically possible to
hear the direction of a cable as he claims? Maybe it is, but
since nobody has produced even an embryo of a plausible
explanation for why this could be possible, I really cannot
see how he could expect us to believe his claim as a fact.
For this particular case there is, however, a blind test planned
which he will participate in, which will be very interesting to follow.
I think your example with musicians is not quite relevant here.
Few musicians or serious listeners have any doubt that
instruments do sound different, and the choice of instruments
is anyway a subjective one. There is no objective way of telling
if a Stradivarius sounds better than a Guernari, for instance. It
is a matter of taste. On the other hand, I would think there is no
problem to establish by measurements that they do indeed
sound different. BTW, as far as I know, the auditions when
hiring new musicians for orchestras is usually done blind, by
letting the applicants play behind a curtain so the "jury"
doesn't know which applicant they are listening to, so it seems
that musicians, or at least those who hire them, are very much
aware of the problems with psycological bias. |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
There is no objective way of telling if a Stradivarius sounds better than a Guernari, for instance. |
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. And I think Eric involvement with this forum is to try to learn about the differences he notices. If it takes as long as it has to learn about the Stradivarius, he (Steve, you, I) will have a very long wait.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. And I think Eric involvement with this forum is to try to learn about the differences he notices. If it takes as long as it has to learn about the Stradivarius, he (Steve, you, I) will have a very long wait. |
In the context of The Great Debate, it's not a matter of waiting around to figure out WHY something sounds the way it does. But rather a matter of whether there are any audibly discernable differences at all.
What sounds better or why something sounds the way it does is a whole other matter.
se |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Okay, I certainly have extended myself a bit (and don't wish to draw this out more).
Steve, your test will be very interesting. I'm glad you received the wire. I'm interested in placing an order with Percy too (for ladder attenuators--either a stereo or dual monos--my design has not finalized).
Also, I think that blind tests are a bit tricky. It may seem simpler than it really is. The test you guys are cooking up seems like a good start.
JF |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
Steve, your test will be very interesting. I'm glad you received the wire. I'm interested in placing an order with Percy too (for ladder attenuators--either a stereo or dual monos--my design has not finalized). |
Actually I haven't received it yet. It's shipping today so hopefully tomorrow.
Don't worry about ordering from Michael. Things can get a bit hectic for him and orders don't always ship as soon as some would like, but he's honest and reliable and as far as I'm aware, he's never screwed a customer.
| quote: | | Also, I think that blind tests are a bit tricky. It may seem simpler than it really is. The test you guys are cooking up seems like a good start. |
What I like about this test is that it allows the listeners to evaluate the cables in exactly the same fashion as they would otherwise.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
JF, you made a good assessment of the situation.
I have a small aside that I might insert: About 28 years ago, I was attending a concert in Switzerland and I heard this INCREDIBLE violin being played. I whispered to my wife-to-be next to me, who was a violinist, what was going on? She said: "That is your first STRAD, John." Now it wasn't my first, but it certainly was the best.
Understanding STRAD's, or understanding hi fi, is harder than it would first appear to be. Unfortunately, SE is arguing with us, from a CONCLUSION that he has already made, that there aren't any serious differences in audio components, and therefore we all must be notmeasuring things correctly, or we are psychologically motivated to find differences, when they are really nonexistant. I find that successful audio designers need to go with 'what works' rather than doggedly state that it is all the same. Why, I don't know, but the results speak for themselves. |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. And I think Eric involvement with this forum is to try to learn about the differences he notices. If it takes as long as it has to learn about the Stradivarius, he (Steve, you, I) will have a very long wait.
JF |
That's a very interesting topic, but also a very different one
from what we have been discussing. I don't think there is
much reason to be surprised that different violins (or other
instruments) sound different. A violin is structurally very complex
and there are many many parameters that are likely to affect
its sound, the exact physical dimensions and thickness of its
parts, the exact type of wood, the lacquer etc. etc. I don't
know if it has been done, but I guess it would be possible
to make some kind of CAD model of a violin and simulate its
acoustic behaviour. I don't mean we would manage to accurately
simulate a real violin, but I guess such a simulation would
show how very minor changes to the physical build can alter
the acoustic behaviour. I recently read about a computer program
that was claimed to very accurately predict how a brass (and
maybe also woodwind) instrument will behave and sound. I
have no idea if it is as good as claimed, but it was done as
academic research and not as a commercial product and it
was intended as an aid to actually build better instruments
and even tailor them to the preferences of individual musicians.
In contrast, in the case of audio we have people claiming to
hear differences between various things where noone has
been able to come up with any plausible reason how there
could be a difference at all, based on current understanfing of
physics, and where no measurements has been able to reveal
a difference. I am not prepared to be so bold as to claim that
hence there cannot be any audible difference, but clearly it
is everything but obvious that it should be possible for the
human ear to hear a difference in these cases.
Edit: I didn't see Johns post since we were obviusly typing in
parallel. Funny though, I think what I just wrote could almost
as well have been a comment on what he wrote. :) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Unfortunately, SE is arguing with us, from a CONCLUSION that he has already made, that there aren't any serious differences in audio components, and therefore we all must be notmeasuring things correctly, or we are psychologically motivated to find differences, when they are really nonexistant. |
There is no CONCLUSION on my part, John. That's a complete fabrication on your part. Why is it you never address what I actually say but instead only slay these straw man fabrications you create?
And by the way, it has been demonstrated that there are audible differences between violins and that these differences are rather trivially measurable.
| quote: | | I find that successful audio designers need to go with 'what works' rather than doggedly state that it is all the same. Why, I don't know, but the results speak for themselves. |
I have never said it is all the same. And in spite of my having made this clear to you dozens of times over the years, you persist in these same straw man fabrications to this day.
I perceive differences myself. And I also go with "what works" for me.
What I don't do is turn around and make huge leaps of illogic and automatically assume that just because I have subjectively perceived some difference that it must therefore be due to some actual audible difference.
I don't know if it is or it isn't. But I do know that there's enough psychology involved with our subjective perceptions that it's just blind religious dogma to assume one or the other.
You're the one with the CONCLUSION, John. You conclude that everything's audible in spite of the fact that as yet there is no clear, convincing objective evidence to support it.
I prefer to keep an open mind.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
| An 'open mind' is all that I can ask of anyone. I just haven't found evidence of it in this case. |
|
|
| kuribo |
| Then try looking away from the mirror.... |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | What sounds better or why something sounds the way it does is a whole other matter. |
And that can be system dependent and a matter of personal taste, right?
Cheers,;)
P.S.
| quote: | | Then try looking away from the mirror.... |
Below the belt.:smash: |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
And that can be system dependent and a matter of personal taste, right? |
Certainly.
se |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
An 'open mind' is all that I can ask of anyone. I just haven't found evidence of it in this case. |
Well, depends on what you mean by an open mind. Neither
Steve nor I have claimed that those things some people claim
to hear are impossibly audible. We may be sceptic to some/many
of those things, but we do not rule out the possibility that
there are in fact real audible differences. I don't really know
what more you could reasonably ask without presenting more
convincing arguments of real audibility. Blindly believing people
who claim to hear things without backing it up with some
evidence or at least reasonable argument is not an open mind.
I prefer to keep a healthy scepticism towards both "extreme"
camps, both those who claim to hear questionable things and
those who flatly deny it is possible to do so. I welcome all
serious attempts at gaining more insight into these issues, be
it by blind tests, measurements or pointing out flaws in how
we apply the laws of physics in these cases.
If it is an open mind to accept all beliefs people present as
facts, then I would have to believe both in the Christian God,
in Allah and at the same time be an atheist, which is as
unreasonable as it is inconsistent. Similarly, I would have to
believe that Kennedy was killed both by Oswald, by CIA and
by the maffia.
Some people have a strong tendency to believe in what they
want to believe and treat this almost as a fact. For instance,
my own father is very prone to believe in the conspiracy theories
that our former prime minister Olof Palme was indeed killed by
swedish policemen, probably just because he finds that a
more fascinating explanation than the other theories. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
I perceive differences myself. And I also go with "what works" for me.
What I don't do is turn around and make huge leaps of illogic and automatically assume that just because I have subjectively perceived some difference that it must therefore be due to some actual audible difference.
I don't know if it is or it isn't. But I do know that there's enough psychology involved with our subjective perceptions that it's just blind religious dogma to assume one or the other.
|
It should be obvious to everybody that Steve also hear (or more properly perceives) the things that others do. He's just not sure if it's real or it's just a subjective experience.
Untill it's clearly proven one way or the other, all those threads debating so called golden ear phenomena are just simply waste of time.
This should be obvious too;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
It should be obvious to everybody that Steve also hear (or more properly perceives) the things that others do. He's just not sure if it's real or it's just a subjective experience. |
Thank you, Peter. That's absolutely correct.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Well, depends on what you mean by an open mind. Neither
Steve nor I have claimed that those things some people claim
to hear are impossibly audible. We may be sceptic to some/many
of those things, but we do not rule out the possibility that
there are in fact real audible differences. I don't really know
what more you could reasonably ask without presenting more
convincing arguments of real audibility. Blindly believing people
who claim to hear things without backing it up with some
evidence or at least reasonable argument is not an open mind.
I prefer to keep a healthy scepticism towards both "extreme"
camps, both those who claim to hear questionable things and
those who flatly deny it is possible to do so. I welcome all
serious attempts at gaining more insight into these issues, be
it by blind tests, measurements or pointing out flaws in how
we apply the laws of physics in these cases.
If it is an open mind to accept all beliefs people present as
facts, then I would have to believe both in the Christian God,
in Allah and at the same time be an atheist, which is as
unreasonable as it is inconsistent. Similarly, I would have to
believe that Kennedy was killed both by Oswald, by CIA and
by the maffia.
Some people have a strong tendency to believe in what they
want to believe and treat this almost as a fact. For instance,
my own father is very prone to believe in the conspiracy theories
that our former prime minister Olof Palme was indeed killed by
swedish policemen, probably just because he finds that a
more fascinating explanation than the other theories. |
Couldn't have said it any better myself. So I won't. :D
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
JF, you made a good assessment of the situation.
I have a small aside that I might insert: About 28 years ago, I was attending a concert in Switzerland and I heard this INCREDIBLE violin being played. I whispered to my wife-to-be next to me, who was a violinist, what was going on? She said: "That is your first STRAD, John." Now it wasn't my first, but it certainly was the best.
Understanding STRAD's, or understanding hi fi, is harder than it would first appear to be. Unfortunately, SE is arguing with us, from a CONCLUSION that he has already made, that there aren't any serious differences in audio components, and therefore we all must be notmeasuring things correctly, or we are psychologically motivated to find differences, when they are really nonexistant. I find that successful audio designers need to go with 'what works' rather than doggedly state that it is all the same. Why, I don't know, but the results speak for themselves. |
John, I grew up listening to my mother playing a Jaccobus Steiner violin, which was a Stradivarius equivalent in it's day, so I understand when you hear a violin that sounds 'right'.
I think that there are very strong physiological/psychological reasons for preferences towards particular instruments or electronic equipment, and I reckon this is to do with perfect pitch and harmonic structures aligned with this.
Notable is the sense of power and volume that a good violin can produce, and this is further to do with pitch perfect correctly chordant dynamic behaviour I reckon.
Interestingly this kind of behaviour can be at will induced into audio systems too, and the listener reaction to such systems is akin to hearing a 'right' violin.
Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Interestingly this kind of behaviour can be at will induced into audio systems too, and the listener reaction to such systems is akin to hearing a 'right' violin. |
How?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
By patching my leads into the system.
Sorry that's about all I can say here for now.
Eric.
You can contact me privately if you like. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | You can contact me privately if you like. |
By e-mail is O.K.?
It's 2.15 in the morning here so I'm bound to wake up some souls
if we talk over the phone right now lest the connection is crystal clear...:D
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
I'll be home tonight.
Eric. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
By patching my leads into the system.
Sorry that's about all I can say here for now. |
Since this is diyAudio.com, how 'bout keeping your leads in Trading Post from now on?
se |
|
|
| mbroker |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. |
FWIW, it's all in the wood. Extremely good sounding orchestral instruments (violins, cellos, etc) use wood with special qualities. Namely fine grain, fine pores, with little cellulose left. It was recently discovered that violins made from Timeless Timber have a very similar sound to Stradivarius violins. More details are available in their "Showroom"
I'm not sure why I tend to follow these pointless threads moreso than any other on this site. Inevitably I just end up wanting my wasted hours back since I didn't (usually) learn anything and am only marginally entertained by the bickering. :bored:
Mark |
|
|
| FLZapped |
| quote: | Originally posted by johnferrier
But last I read, they still do not know why the Stradivarius violins sound the way they do.
JF |
Ahhh, but they do. Turns out ol' Strad was cheap. He used the water logged wood that was dredged up from the bottom of the salt water logging rivers that no one else wanted.
The salt water had washed out the resins in the wood leaving it very porus. Normally, this stuff when left in place gets very hard in time.
So it turns out he made a great sounding instrument totally by accident.
-Bruce |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by FLZapped
Turns out ol' Strad was cheap. |
Interesting. Maybe there is a lesson here.
JF |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by FLZapped
Ahhh, but they do. Turns out ol' Strad was cheap. He used the water logged wood that was dredged up from the bottom of the salt water logging rivers that no one else wanted.
The salt water had washed out the resins in the wood leaving it very porus. Normally, this stuff when left in place gets very hard in time.
So it turns out he made a great sounding instrument totally by accident.
-Bruce |
Although I have heard about that theory before some years
ago I didn't know whether it was just another theory or
something more. Should I understand from what you say that
this is a generally accepted explanation among the Strad
researchers nowadays? BTW, as I heard it was rather that
the wood had started to rotten somewhat, but your version
of it sound more reasonable.
Then we have to question if he was just trying to save a
few bucks or if he actually knew what he was doing and
choose this wood on purpose. We cannot know, of course,
but I wouldn't be suprised if he actually had found out that
this cheap wood was better and kept it as a secret. |
|
|
| RHosch |
So you have perfect pitch Eric? Do you presume that to be a prerequisite for someone to be able to hear these obvious differences? Just curious, as I've seen someone with perfect pitch fail a blind test just like the rest of us (and he was also an experienced and talented musician and audiophile).
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it. |
|
|
| FLZapped |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
Although I have heard about that theory before some years
ago I didn't know whether it was just another theory or
something more. Should I understand from what you say that
this is a generally accepted explanation among the Strad
researchers nowadays? BTW, as I heard it was rather that
the wood had started to rotten somewhat, but your version
of it sound more reasonable.
Then we have to question if he was just trying to save a
few bucks or if he actually knew what he was doing and
choose this wood on purpose. We cannot know, of course,
but I wouldn't be suprised if he actually had found out that
this cheap wood was better and kept it as a secret. |
There was a big documentary about it on one of those learning type channels a few years back, like The Discovery Channel.....They ran all sorts of tests and finally took a good look under an electron microscope. Very interesting, went into all the history, etc.
-Bruce |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by FLZapped
There was a big documentary about it on one of those learning type channels a few years back, like The Discovery Channel.....They ran all sorts of tests and finally took a good look under an electron microscope. Very interesting, went into all the history, etc.
-Bruce |
Interesting, hope they'll broadcast that program here in
Sweden some day, or maybe I have just missed it? :(
I wonder if anyone has yet tried to use this knowledge to
build violins and see if it is possible get a sound similar to
a real Strad? |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
I saw a similar documentary on TV several years ago. I'm sure there have been several.
They covered the waterlogged theory, but added an uneasy twist. While the logs waited in the river for many days, sewage was coming down the river.
So the wood has a nice marinade of, err, stuff suffused through it.
However, the documentary I saw finally concluded something else. In Strad's day, various stones and gems were ground into the lacquers of the time. The TV program concluded that of all the factors involved, the distinctive gems and stones of that area made the most difference in the sound. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | The TV program concluded that of all the factors involved, the distinctive gems and stones of that area made the most difference in the sound. |
Damnnnn...Just while I was carving away my Mpingo blocks. :angel:
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| john curl |
| Folks, people have been analyzing violins and other musical instruments forever. We still don't really know why. Still, people state 'conclusions' that are often half-baked. The amazing thing is to LISTEN to a superior instrument, and just get knocked over. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Folks, people have been analyzing violins and other musical instruments forever. We still don't really know why. Still, people state 'conclusions' that are often half-baked. The amazing thing is to LISTEN to a superior instrument, and just get knocked over. |
Yes, memories.
Celebratory dinner parties in the formal dining room, good company, great food, a few Snapps and my mother playing any tune anybody could think of on her violin - sonic bliss way better than any replay system.
Guys, if you have not heard a beautiful violin played well in intimate surroundings like this, you have not quite lived yet.
Eric. / - Can still hear that violin in my head. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Originally posted by RHosch
So you have perfect pitch Eric? Do you presume that to be a prerequisite for someone to be able to hear these obvious differences? Just curious, as I've seen someone with perfect pitch fail a blind test just like the rest of us (and he was also an experienced and talented musician and audiophile).
Yes, according to some on line tests that I have done.
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
I am not sure that PP is a pre-requisite, but maybe it helps.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
What is to there to understand except whenever anybody brings up points about sonic differences that SE and lately Christer, carry on about listeners deluding themselves and their belief that blind testing is the only arbiter - despite being shown that blind tests typically are hopelessly flawed.
Add to this **** like photos in freezers, this gets really repetetive and really boring - this has been done to death over and over and over.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it.
Yes hopefully the blind testing adhe | | | |
