| geewhizbang |
Meitner may be a nice guy, but what he is saying about cry'oed cables is very suspicious.
For one, he never actually gets around to mentioning any specific chemical or physical change in the cables. This is probably deliberate, so that it is harder to pin him down on what the difference actually is, especially since it is so very likely that there is no change whatsoever.
He cites all sorts of valid cryo and heat treatment techniques on other materials, while conveniently failing to mention the important fact that for each of these examples, the treated item was at an elevated temperature before being rapidly cooled.
The most obvious giveaway that this is utter pseudoscience (or just plain unadulterated BS) is the mention of airiness of sound. This is the favorite word of the golden ears, but is ever so meaningless.
I prefer my sound more velvety in any case. Or how about milky, or spicy? It is just as meaningful.
You would think that if he had managed to get this effect past an ABX test that would really confirm his results we would have heard all about it. So all we have is his assertion that it sound better.
Does he have a financial interest in this strange opinion BTW? I just think he is running a good con. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
| I don't know about the square wave stuff. But I see no need to ovenize a crystal in a CD player. The temperature of the crystal is reasonably constant within 30 degrees F, and even if it isn't perfectly constant it is is unlikely that it can change temperature fast enough to cause an audible problem, especially since the effect of temperature is very slight in the first place. This drift would be worrisome in long term timekeeping, but not in a CD player. So you would have a very, very slight pitch error when the CD player was warmer or colder than ideal, but no jitter going on. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Unfortunately, I find only negative, sophomoric, opinion here. It is pointless.
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism? |
John,
What did he do to be immune to criticism?
Maybe it is precisely the fact that we can only by necessity judge people like Meitner on his arguments, reasoning etc that he is criticised. WE have never met him, he has never had a chance to do us in with a charming smile or an arm around our shoulders or a fancy lunch.
This is something like an ABX test of Mr Meitner: without all the muddling influences of his personality, we ONLY can look at his arguments etc. And these are found wanting. Isn't this the way it should be, in the interest of furthering our understanding?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Bas Horneman |
| quote: | | Does component microphony even exist in CD players or solid state amps |
You bet..ever see what a single Oto Melara 76 firing a round does to a ships analog circuitry? (If the ship is relatively small like a Reshef class attack craft) If you put a scope on any of the equipment the scope just becomes green for a split second...nothing works :-) . |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
| quote: | | One example. Why on earth would anyone want a flat system frequency response? |
If you don't have flat response, you have distortion. You have some frequencies that are not reproduced at a level that matches the original. This distortion can be very audible. A rather modest midrange rise shows up as glare, whereas a midrange dip sounds lifeless. A rolloff in the treble at least sounds pleasant, even if you lose some sparkle in the sound. A peak in the treble is really annoying and very fatiguing to listen to.
Frequency response isn't the only criteria for good reproduction, but it is very important. I tend to like speakers with good frequency response characteristics myself. All of the speakers I have selected over others in the past generally had smoother frequency response graphs than their competition, but I was not looking at them.
But if you get focused on one thing at the expense of other considerations, you can end up with something that has good frequency response graphs, but still has other problems that are clearly audible. |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
[QUOTE: JOhn Curl ] Unfortunately, I find only negative, sophomoric, opinion here. It is pointless.
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism?
Meitner may be a really smart guy, there are lots of really smart guys who say and do things that defy explanation.
When somebody, no matter how many degrees makes a pronouncement that a something is so, it is valid to question how and why they beleive it to be be so and offer up proof.
One needn't be as qualified as you think they need to be in order to ask valid questions.
One who chides people who ask such questions by in effect saying, they are to stupid to criticiize is IMO not only pompous, but probably has something to hide.
Surely you're not opposed to a bit of Socratic method in a place that is supposed to inform.[COLOR=blue] |
|
|
| motherone |
I agree with arthur. To simply say that because someone doesn't have a degree or doesn't do what you do commercially invalidates their questions is asinine.
I don't claim to understand 1/100th of what many of the folks on here do about electronics and audio. I am a humble lurker that likes to glean information off of here to apply to my system and further my knowledge.
Here is where I think may of us "plebeians" are coming from: Many of us have a hard time believing that pointy feet will stop a CD Player from having read errors due to vibrations, or an amplifier from generating distortion. Many of us do not believe the claims of the folks who make the Shakti Stones or Mpingo (Shun Mook) discs. I laugh when I read about C37 lacquer.
We believe this because they are the audio equivelent of the Psychic Friends Network. Nobody can explain or prove why they will improve the sound of a system, but we're all supposed to believe because a few folks claim to hear a difference, and cheerily pay a lot of money "just beacuse."
My favorite part is when someone questions these devices, folks like KYW and John Curl try to throw the "We're in the field," "We have degrees," "You guys are a bunch of pelicanists," and the "you don't know because you haven't tried it," arguments towards them.
All we are asking for is the logical explanation and/or working principal behind these devices, and substantiative proof that they actually do something. Why is this so damn hard for the defenders of these devices to come up with it? The whole "You don't know because you haven't tried it" argument has worn so thin in audio, particularly in this forum, it's not even funny. Everyone has asked for evidence, and thus far all of the "Folks in the know" have produced NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
As I write this, the thread is up to 710 posts. This thread is turning out the same way that all of these questionable "audio devices" threads do: finger pointing and insults. I hope that if it continues on, one of the defenders of these products will post some sort of meaningful measurement or statistic as to why these devices "improve" a sound system, or better yet an explanation as to how it will improve your system. In the meantime, I'll go back to lurking. |
|
|
| OliverD |
Gee... I simply don't get this.
Maybe we don't have this technical explanation. Maybe noone has. Yet. So what? Still, we hear a difference, due to some unknown reason. Why do we have to prove? You're free not to believe, but don't claim we don't hear anything. Only I know what I hear.
Are you telling us that we do not hear this difference until someone gives you a satisfying technical explanation for this phenomenon?
Wouldn't this mean an aircraft won't fly until you have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, jet engines, navigational aids, flight management systems...? |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | All we are asking for is the logical explanation and/or working principal behind these devices, and substantiative proof that they actually do something. |
That's twice as much as I'm asking. Or Randi, for that matter. Frankly, I'd just be happy with some evidence that any of these things do what they claim. After that, the mechanisms can be teased out by the normal processes of experimental science. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Hey, Randi's very high maintenance. He asks for more than anyone can supply. Eat your heart out, J-Lo. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
The problem with what is going on here is that the Psychic Friends Network doesn't even have to actually win any of their arguments. They just have to continue bluffing and blowing steam and appearing to win. That is the reason why every time one of the science behind one of their claims is refuted, they go back to some other claim that has already been refuted and the process starts all over.
All they have to do is recite the same ol' litany of preposterous claims over and over, and the unquestioning schmucks that buy the products that they promote will continue to believe them and waste their money.
The Psychics often don't care about the science in the first place. Many abuse scientific terminology without actually understanding it. Even worse, some of these Psychic Friends actually know science very well but are actually deliberately dissembling.
They don't do ABX testing, because some of them know full well that what they are promoting is just expensive placebo-effect hardware for rich audio nuts.
I still think that some of us terribly ignorant plebes need to speak up against this from time to time or this is going to make any good advice really, really hard to find on DIYAudio wading thru all of this chit.
The emperor is not wearing any clothes and it doesn't take an advanced degree to see this. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | | actually deliberately dissembling |
You're so sharp i'm beginning to lose hope we'll con you into buying some Shakti stones.
Eh, well, you win some you lose some. |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
[QUOTE] Gee... I simply don't get this.
Maybe we don't have this technical explanation. Maybe noone has. Yet. So what? Still, we hear a difference, due to some unknown reason.
[End Quote]
The reason is not unknown, it's because you want it to.Psychologists have Known for some time that when people have expectaions of poisitive effects from things like Shakti stones, you tend to get them.
A DBT can lead to discovering if you are or are not hearing a difference.
It is reasonable to ask for some proof of the effects of such pricey gizmos.
It is reasonable to ask for reviewers to know what they are talking about. It is reasonable that they also do something more than an anecdote to demonstrate things like these work.
If these things work there is a reason and it won't be impossible for it to be learned.
There is nothing unreasonable about questioning if something works or not.
It seems fairly obvious to most people that when someone doesn't want to step up and offer proof, the reason is thjat they have none.
People who have proof are never shy to offer it. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Yeah, my Emm Labs gear is sounding pretty preposterous. I could swear it makes a .... coughing sound at low levels. Really.
Actually, someone should tell Meitner he's too unscientific.
On the other hand, who am I to say? Maybe he was abducted by .... (drum roll) .... aliens. :eek:
Yawn. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | All they have to do is recite the same ol' litany of preposterous claims over and over, and the unquestioning schmucks that buy the products that they promote will continue to believe them and waste their money. |
I hear a lot of littany coming from that same old corner over and over....And it ain't mine.
An unquestioning schmuck will always be just that.
Do you actually think that eveyone has deep pockets but you?
I'd hope not.
Being just a questioning schmuck, I think that over the past 30 years of occasionally buying the odd, off the wall, audio accessory, I never happened to regret any of them...
Does that imply we all buy anything without at least having a listen to it? Find out what others have to say about it?
I don't think so.
Sure enough I like to understand why something does what is claimed about it or what I actually hear...
Sometimes it takes time to find out, sometimes I really couldn't care less.
Not having at least tried is where you always end up losing out on something.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | The Psychics often don't care about the science in the first place. Many abuse scientific terminology without actually understanding it. Even worse, some of these Psychic Friends actually know science very well but are actually deliberately dissembling. |
Coming from someone who's made plenty of technical errors in his posts just in this thread, that's rich ;)
Most DO care, but it isn't always possible to prove things easily. As Oliver points out, whether you can prove or understand what you hear doesn't make it exist or not. Engineering is pragmatic, just because you cannot fully understand the science behind something doesn't mean it doesn't work or isn't true. Engineering is pragmatic, if it works, it works. Engineering history is full of people who've built stuff they didn't fully understand, but it didn't mean for one second what they did was wrong or didn't work.
Tell you what, if you're so concerned about it all, you disprove it.
In fact why has no-one else disproved this stuff?
I know the answer to that, but I'll let you work it out for yourself.
Meanwhile have you worked out how DAC's convert jitter into amplitude errors yet, by their very function?
Andy. |
|
|
| sauuuuuce |
Yeah I saw, somewhere, that a bunch of orchestra brass players take there horns to get frozen.....It's supposed to sound better. Some acoustician booted up his Laptop in a studio and tried the same player with the same model of trumpet and found absolutely no differece what so ever. While electricity does behave differently at different temperatures I would find it hard to believe that cables that were once frozen would have an audible effect on the signal passing through them...............but then again what do I know. I have done no such research so my oppinion is not really justified.
Oh yeah....I realize that this is the everything else forum but I did not realize that this was the everything else all on one thread forum. From the first post to the last there are probably about a zillion topics going one in here. It is especially interesting when several are going on at one time. Theory overload! You guys keep going and there won't be anything left to talk about. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I have not made any significant technical errors. Most of the people on my side have backed up my points.
When I have made a mistake, I have admitted it.
You still haven't abandoned a totally preposterous claim that CD error correction doesn't fix 100% of the errors. We have shown VERY CLEARLY that you are wrong about that.
Now, you have accused me of making mistakes, but that does not mean it is so, especially since one of your basic premises is shown to be wrong. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | In fact why has no-one else disproved this stuff? |
Can't be done. See Popper. For a popular explanation, see Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World," especially his parable about the dragon in the garage.
I also can't prove that there aren't fractionally charged electrons around somewhere. Or magnetic monopoles. See Weber. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | You still haven't abandoned a totally preposterous claim that CD error correction doesn't fix 100% of the errors. We have shown VERY CLEARLY that you are wrong about that. |
Who is "you"?
CD correction DOES fix 100% of all the errors it CAN fix...Beyond that error concealment kicks in...
If that can't cope anymore: MUTE.
Simple.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| sauuuuuce |
Here's the deal folks If YOU don't buy into the hype of any given product, don't buy it. If someone else is singing the praises of it then let it go. Whether it's real(proven) or imagined(unproved) the person still believes that there is a difference in the sound of THEIR system. Even if it's all in their head....That's the only place it needs to be. It's their system if they think it sounds better then great for them. The rest of us will fire up PSPICE and go to town trying to improve the circuitry or whatever.
And a note as far as the SHakti stones go it's marketed as a "DOES a billion things" product but pattented as an EMI reducer. www.uspto.gov patent number 5,814,761 if you wanna read it.
If you don't like it don't use it.........If someone else does then good for them too. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Can't be done. |
Why not? Theoretically, one need only produce measurements showing Shakti effects do not exist. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
Sorry, I misphrased myself. I meant to say that CD error correction, when it works, fixes 100% of the errors. And, as some have shown here, reasonably clean disks are usually read in without any uncorrected errors.
A major part of AYW's theories proposes that the sound isolation reduces the CD read errors. And this is what I believe that many here have shown clearly to be a misunderstanding. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | A major part of AYW's theories proposes that the sound isolation reduces the CD read errors. And this is what I believe that many here have shown clearly to be a misunderstanding. |
That should actually be pretty straightforward to prove or disprove.
Remember when Pin 2 (I think) on the DAC is monitored for error counting?
That should be easy enough to hook up for monitoring.
I don't know if that particular pin is still there however. But there are other ways to verify these errors I'm sure.
Other than that I can't see why isolating a CDP from structureborne or airborne vibration wouldn't improve playback and reduce read errors.
If scratched discs already make it harder, even though data is scattered across the medium itself, to read a disc, it seems very plausible that adding vibrational disturbance would make matters even worse.
What I do have strong reservations about is the use of spikes underneath a CD transport; that can't do anything to improve matters for this situation.
Spikey feet aren't necessarily spikes, nor necessarily performing as such though.
You could imagine that spikes can be critically placed underneath a CD transport to drain vibrational energy from within the player away into the surface it's sitting on.
Newton's law on action and counteraction isn't always as clear cut as it appears on the surface.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Why not? Theoretically, one need only produce measurements showing Shakti effects do not exist. |
You can't do that. You can only show that in THIS setup, THIS time you saw no effect. Now, after doing things again and again and fitting your data into a pattern with other well-established data, you can get an arbitrarily high degree of confidence that the stones aren't doing anything. But all it takes is ONE guy who can hear their effect in a controlled test and WHOOF, everything you know is wrong.
To use a different example, let's consider the charge on an electron. It's unity and it's quantized. Or so we believe. We've measured billions and billions of electrons, looked at millions and millions of spectra, and they all have unity charge. The fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics require this to be true. But... with all that data, we haven't examined EVERY electron in the Universe under all possible conditions (in fact, there's a logical contradiction there because qm also demands that all electrons be indistinguishable).
If someone comes up with a bulletproof demonstration of fractional charge on an electron, he won't be scorned, his work won't be suppressed by the Science Inquisition- on the contrary, he'll get a Nobel. And all of us other folks will now have an incredibly rich new field to work in. We can say that there's pretty much no chance of this happening, but the probability is not zero nor can it be.
But the guy who shows fractional charge on an electron will expect that his experiment will be RIGOROUSLY examined for error. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I still think that a cheap rubber leg would work better than a spike, since the compliance of the rubber (and the consequent thermal heating) would actually absorb energy.
The spikes only make some sense in their original purpose to give a more precise location for speakers on carpet. By pushing thru the nap, and concentrating force, they make for a speaker that is not going to rock as much on its stand.
But on hardwood floors, a rubber or nylon leg would be better, as long as it is reasonably firm. The same thing goes for components on a shelf. A rubber leg will at least damp out some of the vibrations, whereas a solid leg (pointy or not) will simply pass them thru to the item you are trying to protect. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| Taken from Mark Levinson 31 CD Transport literature: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | I still think that a cheap rubber leg would work better than a spike, since the compliance of the rubber (and the consequent thermal heating) would actually absorb energy. |
That's what most people think and yes, sometimes that would be a good solution.
However, what if I want to use a combination of both properties and use a single spike to give my speaker a firm reference to ground and use 2 or 3 lower Q feet to absorb whatever energy the cabinet is creating through panel flexure?
Have you ever tried to add mass, say a few kilos of lead on top of a speaker cabinet?
The added benefit of the mass causing greater downward pressure and the low Q of lead absorbing a lot of energy and slowly converting it into heat.
One could go into detail on what does what exactly, how and why ans so forth but you'll rarely ever going to find a decent explanation in a product leaflet or on a website...
Nonetheless it still is amazing how much the right combinations of materials can turn an already fine system into something closer to twice its money's worth with little expense other than one's time and some common sense.
You can well imagine that tips and tricks like this raise an eyebrow or two when someone just says do this or that without explaining the causes and effects of the actions or a combination of them.
Same thing for the more esoteric stuff really, it's not because we can't readily explain why and how something would have an effect that it's either impossible or inaudible.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Taken from Mark Levinson 31 CD Transport literature: |
Who in turn has looked at what Goldmund had done with their TTs etc...
Who in turn had it from Michel Levy and his brother, Pierre Lurne, Jean-Constant Verdier and myself.
Who in turn all had studied " Electronique et Physique Applique" as it was part of our courses at university.
Small world, isn't it?;) |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
A friend bought a cheap sub in the mid 80s from some discount catalog.
It was a 20" x 20" x 15" box, approximately with a downward-firing paper 15" DVC woofer, passively crossed over. The box was made of veneered, 1/2 inch fairly low grade particle board.
It sounded rather boxy, mostly because the box resonated pretty bad. I mentioned that he could fix it by screwing some boards to it to stiffen it up, but he just spent $150 on a huge kewl looking rock (more than what he paid for the sub BTW) and set it on top. It looked rather nice, actually.
The rock rather nicely compressed the particle board and made it a lot more rigid. The sub sounded considerably better with it on top. It still wasn't really audiophile, but not bad for $250. |
|
|
| Bill Lummus |
| Bash if you wish, but he still makes arguably the best digital gear in the industry. I'll personally listen. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
For my part, I became willing to look closer at Meitner's gear after I learned of his tendency to think outside the tried and true box (as with cryogenics, for instance). That tendency shows an open mind of the type I think bodes well in a realm where measurements sorely lag. I remember when Stereophile began beefing up their measurements of gear they reviewed. These measurements mostly seemed irrelevant to me as they could not, from what I could tell and from reports from the reviewers themselves, indicate the finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question.
Also, as a music lover who has spent considerable hours listening intently to musical recordings---to submerge myself, at times, in the music, and at other times to listen to the gear for shortcomings---I have learned to trust the language of others who report their experiences in that difficult terrain of articulating subtle sonic differences. I'm convinced these sonic differences, call them what you will, are measureable with some theoretical possibility---much like I'm convinced the movement of thought in the brain is measurable within some theoretical possibility. But measuring the most subtle of electrical signals might be like trying to see particles smaller than a photon with a photon. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
It never occurs to you that nobody ELSE has tried cryogenics because it doesn't make any sense?
That you are falling for an utter gimmick? |
|
|
| motherone |
Here's all I'm going to say about the cryogenics stuff. From my understanding (i.e. a few TV programs I've seen on it), one of the benefits from cryogenically freezing something in a controlled manner is that once you hit a certain temperature, the atoms "settle" into a more aligned state.
On one program, the reporter said that a disposable razor that had been cryo'd had already lasted him 6 months.
On certain applications, I can certainly see from the perspective listed above on how it would help. However, in terms of a CD being cryo'd and then thawed, I would be HIGHLY suspect of any changes, especially since we've already gone over how the media is read into the buffer, etc.
Obviously, the easy way to "see" if this CD were actually any better would be to analyze two CD's (perhaps ones that were manufactured sequentially) and analyze the material to see what happens to the disc after it's frozen. I'm sure Meitner could have had this done had he wanted to verify any changes in the medium itself. But, instead, he did the same old thing that most of the "tweakers" do, which is to say he did something and that he heard a difference, write it down, and eschew it to everyone, without any rea; evidence to back it up. |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | You still haven't abandoned a totally preposterous claim that CD error correction doesn't fix 100% of the errors. We have shown VERY CLEARLY that you are wrong about that. |
I HAVE NOT claimed that anywhere here - look back and read you are confusing me with someone else.
By definition though only correctable errors can be fixed, which means uncorrectable ones aren't. Linear interpolation IS NOT recovering the original data on the disc, although short events in isolation may be inaudible.
Andy. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors.
Which makes sense. If a computer can read in data files from a CD disk very reliably without errors, in only follows that a cd player can too, especially since the read speed is much slower than what computers do these days.
The finding that CDs are usually perfectly error corrected also makes the claims of Mr. Meitner about his cryo'ed CDs having less vibrational problems and thus fewer read errors all the more unlikely. There aren't any errors to fix, so why would they sound better?
****
So the only thing that justifies vibration isolation is a possible effect on jitter and microphonic issues with the components. I would suspect that this is being overhyped too, but at least that is possible. |
|
|
| ALW |
| quote: | | You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction. |
Show me where I've claimed that.
Andy. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip] These measurements mostly seemed irrelevant to me as they could not, from what I could tell and from reports from the reviewers themselves, indicate the finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question. [snip] |
Tom (?),
What made you think that there are, in fact, ' finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question' ? Because the reviewer said so?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction. |
ALW did not claim this. I also did also not claim this.
I merely claimed that it would be a POSSIBLE logical explanation for what another board member claimed to observe and wich you insisted in the most authotarian manner could not have ANY logical and physical reason.
The fact that RHosch's experiments found no correlation does NOT mean that the same effect CANNOT apply under certain circumstances. In addition it was agreed even by "your side" that the process I described MAY happen, it thus qualifies as a repudiation of your silly position of the religious, irrational believe that "there cannot be a logical and physical reason".
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not. |
And UNUSUALLY it may still MAY be read with uncorrectable errors vibration or not.
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors. |
You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering.
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
Which makes sense. If a computer can read in data files from a CD disk very reliably without errors, in only follows that a cd player can too, |
I believe this particular fallacy has been argued to death many times. The argument resembels that because a sportscar can get around a certain corner at 55MPH any car, truck or other vehicle can. This is counterfactual thinking in its most rarified form or simply complete ignorance of any facts.
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
The finding that CDs are usually perfectly error corrected
|
Could you provide the reference to that finding? Please do not list RHoschs experiments as he clearly shows that CD's are not usually read 100% Error Free.
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
So the only thing that justifies vibration isolation is a possible effect on jitter and microphonic issues with the components. I would suspect that this is being overhyped too, but at least that is possible. |
Jitter is another issue. This too can have a significant level of influence. And due tho the feedtrough from the Servo Driver supply to the main powersupply for the digital circuitry reduced servo action (less vobration) may very well cause significant differences.
Sayonara |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
[snip]You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering.[snip] |
The process of gwb's logical reasoning lead to the logical conclusion that it CANNOT be. There is nothing wrong, or arrogant in that.
You may not agree with it, in which case you could counter, with arguments, that his premises that lead to the logical conclusion were invalid.
By stating that the perfectly logical outcome of a process of thinking and reasoning is 'a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering' you clearly show your lack of understanding of a logical reasoning process. Or maybe you DO understand it, but you chose to deliberately mislead us. Either way, it DOES put your posts in a better perspective for us. Thanks for that.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa Didden San,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
The process of gwb's logical reasoning lead to the logical conclusion that it CANNOT be. There is nothing wrong, or arrogant in that. |
His "logic" is based on:
1) The general admission that the fundamental mechanism CAN lead to problems
2) One single set of experiments which where not detailed as to the exact procedure and which failed to show a significant difference.
If you logically analyse the above the conclusion "CANNOT" is not supprted by the data and hence ILLOGICAL.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
By stating that the perfectly logical outcome of a process of thinking and reasoning is 'a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering' you clearly show your lack of understanding of a logical reasoning process. |
Wrong. I am showing that the actual process was all BUT logical.
If you consider the process to have been logical I am afraid I must give you the same recommendation as Gee....
Sayonara |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
[snip][snip]If you logically analyse the above the conclusion "CANNOT" is not supprted by the data and hence ILLOGICAL.
Wrong. I am showing that the actual process was all BUT logical.
[snip] |
It is very seldom that anybody misrepresents himself. But you pulled it off. You DIDNOT say that his logic was flawed. You said
"You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering."
Jeez.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
You DIDNOT say that his logic was flawed. |
I felt that the fundamentally flawed logic of the statement I commented upon was so obvious even the current incumbent of the office of the President of the USoA would be aware of it had he followed the exchange.
Hence I commented on the mental state producting such obvious illogic. It seems I overestimated the acuity of parts of the audience.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
The process of gwb's logical reasoning lead to the logical conclusion that it CANNOT be. There is nothing wrong, or arrogant in that.
|
I'm not sure if it is a logical conclusion, for sure it is a convenient conclusion, but as SY mentioned earlier it simply cannot be:
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
You can't do that. You can only show that in THIS setup, THIS time you saw no effect. Now, after doing things again and again and fitting your data into a pattern with other well-established data, you can get an arbitrarily high degree of confidence that the stones aren't doing anything. But all it takes is ONE guy who can hear their effect in a controlled test and WHOOF, everything you know is wrong.
To use a different example, let's consider the charge on an electron. It's unity and it's quantized. Or so we believe. We've measured billions and billions of electrons, looked at millions and millions of spectra, and they all have unity charge. The fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics require this to be true. But... with all that data, we haven't examined EVERY electron in the Universe under all possible conditions (in fact, there's a logical contradiction there because qm also demands that all electrons be indistinguishable).
If someone comes up with a bulletproof demonstration of fractional charge on an electron, he won't be scorned, his work won't be suppressed by the Science Inquisition- on the contrary, he'll get a Nobel. And all of us other folks will now have an incredibly rich new field to work in. We can say that there's pretty much no chance of this happening, but the probability is not zero nor can it be.
But the guy who shows fractional charge on an electron will expect that his experiment will be RIGOROUSLY examined for error. |
|
|
|
| janneman |
Peter,
On the chance that gwb doesn't need me for this, here goes:
This was his reasoning:
/quote start
"You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors."
/quote end
Now, I still stand by my view that the sentence with the word 'CANNOT' follows logically out of what is stated. That doesn't mean it is correct of course.
So if you (or whoever) doesn't agree with the conclusion, pray tell us where the reasoning went wrong or which premise is wrong.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
I didn't see any claims and I miss to notice logic.
All I see are speculations. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
Peter, then you missed an earlier post where someone has ACTUALLY tested one my major premises, and found it to be true.
CD Players simply do NOT make small uncorrectable errors in reading the digital data. They read the pits in, the error correction does its thang, and voila, out comes perfectly accurate data, which is then fed into the DAC.
Nor does it affect the timing of the stream, since the data is read into a buffer, which then issues the digital stream in proper time alignment.
There is other reasoning that makes a strong indication that read errors cannot possibly be the cause. Data CDs are read in perfectly most of the time. When they are not, even with a SINGLE bit error, the file is ususally completely borked.
So absolute perfection is required, or CDs would be a horrible way to save data or software on a computer. I would also venture to say that it is also required for CD audio, since read errors in a digitally-encoded audio signal are very, very audible.
Audio CDs and Data CDs are more the same than they are different, btw. Error correction is a vital part of the CD technology, which allows the CDs to be handled evem somewhat carelessly and still result in absolutely perfect reads of the data on them.
If CDs were making lots of little errors, the results would be unlistenable. That is the highly logical point I'm making. You can call me Spock if you wish. |
|
|
| TNT |
Suggestion for reason to KYWs Kirkby problem ....
Short description: Triple interference involving mechanics, electronics and performer induced oscillation in an audio system.
Long: KYWs (as everyones else) suffers from vibration with a changing frequency which follows the changing rotational speed as the laser reads different tracks on the CD.
Emma Kirkby (which BTW i think is the best singer on the earth) hits the high note at -1 dB under max level which frequency (as she sings so clean and with such dead on pitch)
happens to interfere with the vibration of the CD players due the particular place on the CD where the high note was recorded.
Now, to make the situation worse, the oscillator feeding KYWs D/A process, all of a sudden, due to said feedback, starts to burst out sidebands of exactly the same frequency as the Emma/CD Rotational speed interference just making the whole things going havoc ...
Screeetch - nasty sound in KYWs otherwise nice sounding system.
So why does this not happen on more than one record. Well, it's the particular occasion of a specific high level note and the rotational speed (i.e. when in time on the disc it occurs) and it happens to be the only record in the world that this happens ;-)
Go figure :-)
BTW It does not happen on my system with this particular disc but on the other hand I don't use pointy feets...
NB: For this to happen, nonewhatsoever disc read errors are involved!
/
edit: spelling and NB |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
Peter, you quote SY explaining why we can't do a single test of the Shakti stones and eliminate all possibilities that they do anything.
We can only show that it is very unlikely. So those determined to be disingenous and non-scientific about this can always move the pea around to a different place whenever we pick one of the cups and show that there is no effect in that case, and thus it is never found.
But I will reiterate my claim that CD players simply do not make small read errors to justify the supposed audio benefits of pointy feet. There are no errors, zilch, nada, zero. So there is no way for this to be an explanation of the effects you claim for them.
I'm not saying that there could not be other explanations. I doubt this, but I don't know for sure. But I can claim with a VERY high degree of certainty that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that CD players can even make small digital errors due to vibration.
But it would help if you would actually do a scientifically valid test of this effect before we try to find out what (if anything) is causing it. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Tom (?),
What made you think that there are, in fact, ' finer forms of distortion that distinguished the gear in question' ? Because the reviewer said so?
Jan Didden |
Hi Jan,
Yes. I generally trust that most review opinions authored by such as Harry Pearson, Jonathan Valin, Dick Olsher, John Atkinson, etc, speak, in some sense, to audible artifacts that are not now well correlated with measurements, if measured at all. I trust their opinions on the ground that (1) what I read corresponds with my experience in having, for my own purposes of pursuing better sound, heard the types of sonic differences they describe and (2) try as I may I have not found measurements to adequately explain those differences, though as I said I trust those measurements theoretically could exist, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps in a thousand years.
Tom |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
It never occurs to you that nobody ELSE has tried cryogenics because it doesn't make any sense?
That you are falling for an utter gimmick? |
You're speaking way below me here. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
But it would help if you would actually do a scientifically valid test of this effect before we try to find out what (if anything) is causing it. |
Well, I'm not making any claims, so I don't think I'm required to prove anything. And frankly, I'm too busy with other things to waste my time on satisfying yours (or others like you) eagerness to KNOW.
I simply share my observations and what I found works for me. If you are willing to invest in my further experiments in that matter, I'm certainly open for suggestions. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
For all you "prove it" guys out there, here are two versions of a question that will help flush out certain basic assumptions ... let's compare our answers to see where each is coming from.
(1) What percentage of that which the ear can audibly distinguish can be measured with current techniques?
My answer: less than 100.
(2) Is it possible that the ear, like the brain, has workings or operational capabilities that go beyond the currently measurable?
My answer: yes, in fact, with almost a certainty. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
But I can claim with a VERY high degree of certainty that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that CD players can even make small digital errors due to vibration.
|
To be barking as you say here, I would have to express my opinion on digital errors due to vibration (in CD players).
I invite you to check my every post here and indicate were exactly I'm doing it. It's just one example of your usual assumptions. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I didn't see any claims and I miss to notice logic.
All I see are speculations. |
Peter,
His logic is that:
1 - Errors due to vibrations are 100% corrected by the error correction.
2 - People claim that vibrations cause audible differences.
-> Therefore, the audible differences claimed to result from vibrations CANNOT be the result of uncorrected errors.
QED.
Please note:
The above is not a verbatim representation of the referenced text.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
You are moving the pea again, Peter.
You DO make all sorts of fabulous claims. You sell stuff designed around them. You make observations about all sorts of audio effects of various components and configurations, but you don't do them in a way that is scientifically valid.
You merely have an opinion that these expensive things sound better. But you are unwilling to do a proper test to prove this, yet somehow I'm the one that is illogical and arrogant.
You are making unproven assertions that X sounds better than Y. You just run non-blinded tests to come up with these opinions.
You don't hesitate to opine that is is because of reason z. Then if anyone tries to show you that reason z is not possible, you then either move the pea, or just continue to ignore logical reasoning and shoot the messenger. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: |
Errors due to vibrations are 100% corrected by the error correction.
|
I'm not sure if this 100% correct. That's why I can't accept his logic. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
You are moving the pea again, Peter.
You DO make all sorts of fabulous claims. You sell stuff designed around them. You make observations about all sorts of audio effects of various components and configurations, but you don't do them in a way that is scientifically valid.
You merely have an opinion that these expensive things sound better. But you are unwilling to do a proper test to prove this, yet somehow I'm the one that is illogical and arrogant.
You are making unproven assertions that X sounds better than Y. You just run non-blinded tests to come up with these opinions.
You don't hesitate to opine that is is because of reason z. Then if anyone tries to show you that reason z is not possible, you then either move the pea, or just continue to ignore logical reasoning and shoot the messenger. |
Please show me at least one example of the claim I make, or forever hold your peace.
I was under impression that expressing personal opinion (or observation) is not against forum rules.
However, lying is not normally accepted social behaviour. I must say that some of your statements are simply not true. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
For all you "prove it" guys out there, here are two versions of a question that will help flush out certain basic assumptions ... let's compare our answers to see where each is coming from.
(1) What percentage of that which the ear can audibly distinguish can be measured with current techniques?
My answer: less than 100.
(2) Is it possible that the ear, like the brain, has workings or operational capabilities that go beyond the currently measurable?
My answer: yes, in fact, with almost a certainty. |
Tom,
A basic problem is that we cannot clearly distinguish hearing from perceiving. If i may go into your second item, I agree, but maybe in a different way than you mean.
It is generally agreed (yes I know, prove it, I don't, this is free advice and anyone can take it or leave it) that perception is something that is built up by the brain and that the actual signal coming in from the ears is just ONE part of the data that makes up the perception.
That is the reason that we can imagine things, that placebo's work etc. It is also the reason that we can remember sound. That is the clearest indication: You 'hear' the sound from yesterday although it is not really out there: the brain just makes it up according to what you 'remember' of it (which in itself is a quite interesting issue).
If you expect someting to hear, to see, or to happen, the brain sets up a kind of template in anticipation. It actively increases the sensitivity in those sensor channels that would support the anticipated event, and likewise attenuates those channels that would lead to a different perception.
That is why blind testing is so important if you want to know something objectively, unmuddled by your (unconcious!) anticipations and expectations.
You CANNOT (pun intended) use the words hearing and perception indiscriminately for the same event, because they are different processes. Hearing is the process of translating air pressure changes into signals into the brain. Perception is the process of constructing a sound 'landscape' in your conciousness that has as one of its input component also the heard sound.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I think it would be plenty easy for anyone to search the posts you have made here and elsewhere, that you do have many opinions and theories.
You claimed that pointy legs made a difference on a CD-player DAC. You proposed reasons for this (vibration induced read errors) that have been shown to not be true.
You sell pointy legs for a solid-state amplifier, as if solid state components are significantly affected by vibration (assuming that pointy legs even have the effect you claim on s hard surface).
You sell a premium kit of expensive caps and resistors at a significantly higher price than ordinary, good commercial quality components.
You continue to make claims that these sound better in various posts around here.
You can go ahead and make these assertions, but there is nothing wrong with asking you to show some proof, and you never do. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
Hey Jan,
That's a very good observation. That's also why I recently am not using expression "hear" or "listen" but actually I'm saying "perceiveng" depending on "your perception" . I believe it's more accurate description. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
| Implying that unless we agree with you about your observations, that your ears are somehow better than mine. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
I think it would be plenty easy for anyone to search the posts you have made here and elsewhere, that you do have many opinions and theories.
You claimed that pointy legs made a difference on a CD-player DAC. You proposed reasons for this (vibration induced read errors) that have been shown to not be true.
You sell pointy legs for a solid-state amplifier, as if solid state components are significantly affected by vibration (assuming that pointy legs even have the effect you claim on s hard surface).
You sell a premium kit of expensive caps and resistors at a significantly higher price than ordinary, good commercial quality components.
You continue to make claims that these sound better in various posts around here.
You can go ahead and make these assertions, but there is nothing wrong with asking you to show some proof, and you never do. |
You ask me to do scientific experiments to prove something. I believe that finding posts where I do present claims would be much easier task. So do it, I'm waiting.
I did not claim that pointy feet made the difference. I only described what I observed in my system. I hope you can notice a difference here.
I can choose to sell whatever I want for my product, and frankly I don't see a reason why you would be concerned with that. Unless you are some sort of a rep from a trade commision or similar office.
I am not the only one selling expensive parts as an equipment upgrade. But I'm one of the few who actually do it at lower price than normally available from usual vendors. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
Implying that unless we agree with you about your observations, that your ears are somehow better than mine. |
No, it only shows that my perception is different. And my ears have no choice but to be different than yours. And this is a fact. |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
:cop:
geewhizbang
Much as I sympathise with your frustrations at the state of High end audio, there is no need to specifically take out your grievances on Peter Daniel. Please desist. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
Yes, you deliberately choose to evaluate things in a way that allows the known phenomenon of psychoacoustics to influence the results. Then you turn around and claim it is because your ears are so much more superior than anyone that disagrees with you.
Do I really need to go thru all of your back posts and quote you verbatim? My paraphrases of your points are rather accurate, IMHO, so I think this is just another way of moving the pea. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
Do I really need to go thru all of your back posts and quote you verbatim? My paraphrases of your points are rather accurate, IMHO, so I think this is just another way of moving the pea. |
Yes, I realy DO want that.
To make it easier for you, here's the first example: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...12&pagenumber=1
Do I make a claim or do I specifically state that this will depend on your perception (and the system)? |
|
|
| Netlist |
geewhizbang,
I can tell you that Peter is one of the people who’s constantly in test-mode.
Please take a look around this forum, I can’t find anyone else except Mr. Pass that published so many results, often without claiming anything.
Simple and more complex listening test, with all sorts of components, always looking for the best, uncompromised setup.
BTW, what exactly do you want to prove with your posts?
And yes, please post links!!
/Hugo |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I am not focusing on Peter Daniel, but he is just the one of a few that are so determined to make this sort of arguments.
I have never resorted to some of the low blows that Peter has used against me. I am ready to stop, because I have other things to do. I have made my points, I stand by them.
I find Peter's attitude to be so completely different than mine, and rather appalling. I just want an approach that is more aware of how easy it is to fool ourselves when we are making audio tweaks. He may well have the budget for his expensive tweaks, whether they work or not. If I am going to spend more money on things that improve the sound, it needs to be well tested and verified. I am not willing to spend any extra on an expensive resistor or pointy legs unless it really makes a difference.
To do so violates principles of good engineering, breaks my budget, for no good end.
Peter and a few others are just determined to muddle this up with a thoroughly non-scientific approach. There is a certain arrogance in their golden-ear assertion that they can hear rather amazing things, like the pointy feet on the CD player.
I don't mind if they continue in this somewhat random experimentation. And of course every now and then it will blunder into something previously unknown and that can actually be shown to exist. In those cases, a scientifically valid test would show that there IS a difference, and then we can follow it back to the source of the problem.
The problem is that Peter is unwilling to ever submit his assertions to a valid test. I find that appalling. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
That is the reason that we can imagine things, that placebo's work etc. It is also the reason that we can remember sound. That is the clearest indication: You 'hear' the sound from yesterday although it is not really out there: the brain just makes it up according to what you 'remember' of it (which in itself is a quite interesting issue).
If you expect someting to hear, to see, or to happen, the brain sets up a kind of template in anticipation. It actively increases the sensitivity in those sensor channels that would support the anticipated event, and likewise attenuates those channels that would lead to a different perception.
That is why blind testing is so important if you want to know something objectively, unmuddled by your (unconcious!) anticipations and expectations.
|
Jan, I agree with your thoughtful post about the role of memory in perception (by the way, have you read David Bohm?), and I agree that blind testing---being the closest thing we have to creating unsubjective results---is rather a more accurate testing vehicle than the method adopted by magazine reviewers. But what if blind testing does not mesh with the brain-hearing-perception mechanism to elicit, in the test subject's perception, subtler distinguishable differences (for instance, perhaps, because the time allowed in such tests is too short)? If A/B testing doesn't properly mesh, as such, and if the sonic differences in question cannot be measured by electronic means, what then? How, in other words, does one progress the state of the art of audio lacking efficacious tools of objective measurement? This is the problem I see, which is not answered by saying, well, we need to employ more A/B testing. The brain-hearing-perception mechanism might be (in my universe, very likely is) sufficiently subtle to hear differences that current means of objective testing cannot or do not reliably catch. Speak to a violinist about subtle differences between various makes of violins---an experienced violinist would tell you those differences exist (pushing the market for the "better" violins, parenthetically, into the high-end-audio stratosphere). Ask him to prove it through an blind A/B test and see what she or he says. |
|
|
| SY |
gwb:
Peter doesn't have to do anything.
He does try very hard to separate objective claims from his subjective opinions. He is quite honest and straightforward that he doesn't claim any scientific validation. He is quite up-front that he does not accept the validity of controlled testing and therefore doesn't do any or claim any.
For these reasons alone, he should be accorded more respect than the common run of tweak-peddlers. It's not useful to badger him into doing things your way just because you think it's the only valid approach. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
... low blows ...
... rather appalling ...
... just determined to muddle this up with a thoroughly non-scientific approach ...
... arrogance in their golden-ear assertion ...
... it will blunder into something previously unknown ...
... Peter is unwilling to ever submit his assertions to a valid test ...
... I find that appalling. |
GWB, you might find a more receptive audience if you reduced the accusatory tone of your posts and became more tentative about things you imply you know. For instance, and not to pick on you but merely to illustrate, how do you *know* with such certainty as to say Peter, whoever he is (have you met him?), is "unwilling to ever submit" etc? That kind of statement, which realistically is likely untrue, is provocative and not of the kind of inquiring tone that allows persons to talk constructively about personal differences. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
For all you "prove it" guys out there, here are two versions of a question that will help flush out certain basic assumptions ... let's compare our answers to see where each is coming from.
(1) What percentage of that which the ear can audibly distinguish can be measured with current techniques?
My answer: less than 100. |
What exactly do you mean by "which the ear can audibly distinguish"? Do you mean that which has actually been shown to be audibly distinguishable or that which you suspect may be audibly distinguishable?
If you mean that which has actually been shown to be audibly distinguishable, then we can rather trivally measure well below those levels.
A bit less trivially, we can measure down to the thermal noise limit of the air itself, which also limits what we can ever possibly hear, at least by way of acoustic means.
| quote: | (2) Is it possible that the ear, like the brain, has workings or operational capabilities that go beyond the currently measurable?
My answer: yes, in fact, with almost a certainty. |
Well, since we can ultimately (though not treribly trivially) measure down to the thermal noise limit of the air, which itself limits what we can possibly hear, I'd say the answer is no, with the same amount of certainty that you say yes above.
The ear can be amazingly sensitive. Under the right conditions (i.e. an anechoic chamber) we can hear the air molecules themselves banging against our eardrums.
But they key phrase there is "under the right conditions."
se |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I'm not sure if this 100% correct. That's why I can't accept his logic. |
I'm not sure either. But that menas we'll have to show that it isn't correct or shut up, right? Starting to throw adjectives around like 'religious', irrational', 'arrogant' doesn't hack it, if you take yourself serious.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| Personally, I suspect the problem is not How to measure, but What to measure... |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
No, it only shows that my perception is different. And my ears have no choice but to be different than yours. And this is a fact. |
Agreed 100%. But the upshot of that is that what you perceive may be very different than what I perceive. In other words, you may honestly and seriously perceive a better sound using, say, green CD pens.
Would I also perceive that improvement? Since I am sceptical, I am already primed AGAINST hearing that improvement, meaning it would have to be a very big difference indeed to convince me.
Moral: There nothing so handy as a blind test.
Jan Diddenn |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Moral: There nothing so handy as a blind test.
|
That is correct, if you want to do it scientifically and generalize matters.
But music is much of a subjective experience and if some accesories/methods/practices enhance that experience, I don't see a reason to necessarily test everything with blind tests. Actually, if it happened that blind test shows that I'm unable to differenciate the tweaks, it might have tremendous psychological influence on my perception. Something I wouldn't like to occur, as I'm pretty happy with the things as they are now.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everything is due to psychoacustics, but also I cannot exclude this as a possibility. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Jan, I agree with your thoughtful post about the role of memory in perception (by the way, have you read David Bohm?), and I agree that blind testing---being the closest thing we have to creating unsubjective results---is rather a more accurate testing vehicle than the method adopted by magazine reviewers. But what if blind testing does not mesh with the brain-hearing-perception mechanism to elicit, in the test subject's perception, subtler distinguishable differences (for instance, perhaps, because the time allowed in such tests is too short)? If A/B testing doesn't properly mesh, as such, and if the sonic differences in question cannot be measured by electronic means, what then? How, in other words, does one progress the state of the art of audio lacking efficacious tools of objective measurement? This is the problem I see, which is not answered by saying, well, we need to employ more A/B testing. The brain-hearing-perception mechanism might be (in my universe, very likely is) sufficiently subtle to hear differences that current means of objective testing cannot or do not reliably catch. Speak to a violinist about subtle differences between various makes of violins---an experienced violinist would tell you those differences exist (pushing the market for the "better" violins, parenthetically, into the high-end-audio stratosphere). Ask him to prove it through an blind A/B test and see what she or he says. |
Tom,
What is perfect in this world (except maybe my wife's body, but I am primed toward that big time:D)? I don't think that blind testing is the panacea that solves all our problems. But, and I feel strongly about that, it is orders of magnitude more sensitive and objective than sighted testing. If you throw out blind testing because it isn't perfect, we might as well throw everything and anything out and go back to living in caves.
Let me give another example of how weird our brains are. There is a specific type of brain damage, forgot the scientific name, that involves massive severance of the high capacity cabling between the left and right hemisphere. Typically, patients have perfectly functional eyes, but from one eye the inputs do not get to the part of the brain that makes it available for conciousness (mostly IIRC the left eye). There is a standard trivial test: you cover up the right ('good') eye and show something, say, a red cube with blue dots.
Then you ask the patient what he saw. Mostly, they get angry about the stupid test. They are blind on the left side, for Pete's sake! After calming them down, and removing the eye patch, they are asked to write down what they saw. More anger. OK, the tester says, just write something down, it doesn't matter. He writes down: red cube with blue dots.
And you thought we were perfectly logical beings that KNOW what we hear and see? Hah!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
That is correct, if you want to do it scientifically and generalize matters.
But music is much of a subjective experience and if some accesories/methods/practices enhance that experience, I don't see a reason to necessarily test everything with blind tests. Actually, if it happens that blind test shows that I'm unable to differenciate the tweaks, it might have tremendous psychological influence on my perception. Something I wouldn't like to occur, as I'm pretty happy with the things as they are now.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everything is due to psychoacustics, but also I cannot exclude this as a possibility. |
Peter,
That's a pretty observant post. If you can enhance your perception by wearing blue slippers, that's an easy and cheap way to have more fun.
I think the confusion (and emotion) starts when people say (I'm not saying you do or don't, but generally): do as I, wear blue slippers, and you'll have a great musical experience. Or get brilliant pebbles, or anything. People won't believe that those blue slippers work for them, and ask for blind tests, which will most probably show zero results, so it's a pretty useless exercise.
But as soon as anybody tells me: buy this 200 $ gizmo from me, and YOUR sound system will sound much better, I demand an independent, objective test that it is so.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Peter,
That's a pretty observant post. If you can enhance your perception by wearing blue slippers, that's an easy and cheap way to have more fun.
I think the confusion (and emotion) starts when people say (I'm not saying you do or don't, but generally): do as I, wear blue slippers, and you'll have a great musical experience. Or get brilliant pebbles, or anything. People won't believe that those blue slippers work for them, and ask for blind tests, which will most probably show zero results, so it's a pretty useless exercise.
But as soon as anybody tells me: buy this 200 $ gizmo from me, and YOUR sound system will sound much better, I demand an independent, objective test that it is so.
Jan Didden |
I sense a slight desire to misinterpret what I actually pretty honestly was trying to say.
To put it in other words, I simply don't care why it works, what you think about it, or what kind of proof is neccessary to change your mind.
As far as I find pleasure in what I'm doing, I will continue doing it, regardless of what others might think.
PS: The only way to do the test, you either borrow that $200 gizmo, or you buy it. But you can't do a test without having it. And since such test may be greatly dependant on your perception, it wouldn't be wise to ask someone else doing it for you. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I sense a slight desire to misinterpret what I actually pretty honestly was trying to say.
To put it in other words, I simply don't care why it works, what you think about it, or what kind of proof is neccessary to change your mind.
As far as I find pleasure in what I'm doing, I will continue doing it, regardless of what others might think.
PS: The only way to do the test, you either borrow that $200 gizmo, or you buy it. But you can't do a test without having it. |
No 'desire' Peter, if I misinterpreted it, it is because I misunderstood it.
And yes, if I want to test it, I need to get the thing. In practise, you can't keep up with everything, you make a choice depending on what seems promising/possible based on your own prejudice and possible erroneous opinions. That's life, isn't it?
But can you see my point that as soon as someone starts peddling whatever works for them to others, for money, with the message that it also works for them, that's a different ball game, isn't it? Even if they're quite honest about it, I am entitled to ask 'show me'.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
If you mean that which has actually been shown to be audibly distinguishable, then we can rather trivally measure well below those levels.
|
Steve, take a simple tube line stage, capacitively coupled with a polypropylene capacitor. Swap the polypropylene cap out with a teflon variety. If I've had enough time with the circuit prior to swapping caps, I'll almost certainly hear a difference. Assuming that difference exists (factors like capacitor DA suggest an electrical if not acoustic difference exists), are you saying the difference is currently measurable? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
What is perfect in this world (except maybe my wife's body, but I am primed toward that big time:D)? |
Pictures, Jan, pictures.
| quote: | I don't think that blind testing is the panacea that solves all our problems. But, and I feel strongly about that, it is orders of magnitude more sensitive and objective than sighted testing. If you throw out blind testing because it isn't perfect, we might as well throw everything and anything out and go back to living in caves.
|
Well, I wasn't asking that a test be perfect before declaring myself willing to use it. I was, rather, questioning whether a typical A/B test actually allows the hearing-perception mechanism to elicit subtler audible differences, assuming they exist. Allow me to reiterate an experience I've had numerous times. I swap out carbon resistors in part of a circuit for Vishays, and hear a difference. Likely the difference I hear is a difference arising from my brain comparing new audio input (from Vishay'd gear) and expectation (from old carbon resistor gear)---clearly this must be in such instance. I feel quite confident in my ability to hear the so-called "sound" of components under these circumstances. I don't feel confident I could hear such difference if I hadn't had previous experience with the piece of electronics used as the test gear, for reason that I'm insufficiently attuned, by way of built-up expectations, to notice differences that well might exist. Gotta go. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Steve, take a simple tube line stage, capacitively coupled with a polypropylene capacitor. Swap the polypropylene cap out with a teflon variety. If I've had enough time with the circuit prior to swapping caps, I'll almost certainly hear a difference. Assuming that difference exists (fa |
| | | |
