Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers - Page 18 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State

Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th March 2003, 03:42 AM   #171
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northwest
Default Final comments part two...

Quote:
Originally posted by mikek
Now ....on the points i raised....all i was trying to show logically, and from first principals, was the inescapable fact that 'audible but unmeasurable' defects in power amps. simply do not exist.....
You have my vote if but good luck trying convince several members here of that.

In this thread, I have brought up case after case where psychological bias accounts for perceived differences that don't really exist. Others have brought similar perspectives and references to the discussion supporting my views.

People don't have to take my word for it, they can take the word of Tom Nousaine, or Douglas Self, or re-create their own blind or null tests. What I have presented has been well documented in a variety of places and can be readily verified. The bulk of it isn't opinion, it's fact.

To do a basic blind test you only need a CD with some test signals, A DMM ( to match levels) and someone to swap leads for you and keep track of your "guesses". Sure it's not a perfect test, but it's certainly an interesting place to start.

I asked who here thinks they could pick out a $300 Japanese mainstream integrated from high-end separates costing at least ten times as much in a blind test. Nobody answered.

For the most part, however, all of the above have been ignored by those who don't agree wtih my views. Instead, they've chosen to either ignore the subject matter completely and discuss firesign theater, see-thru cables and other off topic matters, or they refute my points with the following sorts of replies:
Quote:
Originally posted by various members


"Seems to me, you're bitter"

In response to a description of an amp I built (and am still proud of), someone wrote under the title "WONDERCRAP"... "And to what "low-end" gear would that set-up "null" I wonder?"

"Your motivation for this appears to be of the "sour grapes" type and hints of possible resentment towards those who have achieved the results you seem to have striven to achieve at one time."

"You picked a strange place to push your viewpoint. It does a disservice to the many members here working to achieve pleasure from this endeavor."

"If, as you say, you spend five figures on your hobby, you wouldn't be mentioning the above parts. This is the basic stuff and not high end. Just as an example, I'm using $28 resistors in my amps and $75 caps"

"I could compare it to a discussion between two types of people. One type have never had sex and they just talk about it..."

"if you are not hearing subtle differences then it is likely that there is some kind of masking going on...Your visual system plugged into the same mains source can cause masking too, even if turned off I find... anything else hooked up to that should be disconnected from the mains for serious listening."
I had hoped this was a DIY forum that was open to all levels of audio DIY projects and opinions. I also hoped that people here would generally be of a more analytical mind and put more weight in statistics, measurements, logic and even common sense than your typical hardcore audiophile.

For what it's worth, I was in no way trying to discourage anyone from building their own audio gear. As I've said many times, I know from personal experience it's a very rewarding hobby. I think there are many satisfying DIY projects including amplifiers. I've posted to other threads here trying to be as helpful as possible.

I was also trying to save a few folks some money. As I said early on, in light of the evidence I've presented, it would seem to make more sense to spend your amplifier budget on things that make a measurable and audible difference and not waste money on things that apparently don't. I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with that.

Again, I sincerely wish all of you well with your projects and I wish mikek the best of luck if he chooses to pursue his views here.
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:47 AM   #172
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default Re: This indeed is a 'fun' thread...

Quote:
Originally posted by mikek
A sinusoid constitutes an excellent test signal because all waveforms in nature can be shown to consist of an infinite number of sinusoids...(or cosinusoids to be precise).
Depends what it is that you're wanting to test.

A simple, static sinusoid stimulus is really a rather poor test signal beyond rather simple, static tests. Music signals are neither simple or static. To get an idea of a device's dynamic behavior, you need to feed it something with a bit more meat on its bones.

This is why more robust test signals such as Maximum-Length Sequences (MLS) have been developed (starting back in the mid-60s). So that devices can be tested under more dynamic conditions more closely resembling the dynamics of realworld music signals.

se
 
Old 24th March 2003, 04:12 AM   #173
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brooklyn
Default Topological acuity....

Quote:
Originally posted by mikek
....interestingly, i have observed that detractors of the douglas Self design approach on this forum simultaneously have an affection for the 'gainclone' designs which uses a near identical topology.....
HUH????
In what ways are these gainclone's topology 'near identical' to Self's complementry output topologies? Does an input ltp define the amp???
Well, whatever 'first principals' you're talking about, your arguments might make more sense if your topology comments indicated that you could actually read a schematic???
 
Old 24th March 2003, 04:40 AM   #174
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default MELISSA

Hi,

Quote:
I was also trying to save a few folks some money. As I said early on, in light of the evidence I've presented, it would seem to make more sense to spend your amplifier budget on things that make a measurable and audible difference and not waste money on things that apparently don't. I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with that.
Surely Fred, Eric, Peter, myself and no doubt many others here could advise on how to save money when it must come to that too.

All of the people mentioned surely take measurements too, we just take them as assurance every is working properly and to have an idea of what can be expected soundwise.

After that we listen, think and tinker till it sounds right...

If you think that differences between components, boutique or not can't be measured than please think again for they can.
The crux however is in how to read the measurements and relate them to sonic attributes.
So, that would make for a measurable and audible difference, would it not?

Granted, there are a mumber of things we hear but can't measure.
Does it than follow it is just not there?

Distortion is more than what any measurement gear will show, distortion can be anything that was not there at the input.
A nulling test may be helpful but it certainly does not tell the whole story, and as far as I'm concerned it will all depend on how you, the user will arrive at conclusions.

There are at least 50 cheap tricks I can think of that have the potential of improving a system that don't cost an arm and a leg and won't likely give you a measurable improvement but certainly an audible one.

The only thing I notice is that the majority of people aren't even willing to try out even the simplest of experiment, no...they'd rather talk it down than try it.

Oh, and please do replace those Wondercrap caps with something half decent...they do sound like caramel candy, not that you can measure that...

Cheers,

/Always look at the bright side of life.
__________________
Frank
 
Old 24th March 2003, 06:41 AM   #175
diyAudio Member
 
analog_sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sofia
Tube_Dude

Two questions.

The obvious: did you pick your moniker based on the Hafler test? Tube amps produce notoriously bad zero...
In your setup you don't seem to account for possible group delays in the amp under test. These will produce larger error but no sonic penalty.


cheers

peter
 
Old 24th March 2003, 08:59 AM   #176
diyAudio Member
 
traderbam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Default Rebutal

Quote:
cannot help smiling at this particular red herring......While no one listens to sinusoids for fun...(well...no one i know anyway)....,an amplifier cannot possibly have any views as to what signals appear at its input.....whatever appears at the input at any instant simply resolves to a voltage that must be multiplied by its gain, and presented at low impedance to the transducer.
An amplifier has memory. The instantaneous output voltage will be a function of input voltage and previous input history and propagation delay and distortion.
Quote:
A sinusoid constitutes an excellent test signal because all waveforms in nature can be shown to consist of an infinite number of sinusoids...(or cosinusoids to be precise).
In other words an infinite number of sinewaves is an excellent test signal. Not a single sinewave.
Quote:
I suggest the most significant point raised at the begining of this thread has been ignored...and that is.....all amplifiers with say less than 100 parts per million THD, driven within their power ratings, and at the same power output into the same load, cannot be distinguished by merely listening to them.
Is THD is the same thing as TD? You hear TD not THD.
Quote:
Crucialy, of course, differences in load driving ability will be observed as the volume control is advanced, but this then is a wholly explicable case of raw available power..i.e: current reserves, and headroom.....Nothing to do with the issues raised in this thread....i.e: unmeasurable, but audible differences between units.....which have consistently been shown to be wholly imaginary.
I disagree with the premise that measurement is comprehensive. If something is audible (repeatably) then it is measurable. However, it does not follow that if something cannot be measured then it cannot be heard.
 
Old 24th March 2003, 01:29 PM   #177
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default Re: Final comments part two...

Quote:
Originally posted by nw_avphile

People don't have to take my word for it, they can take the word of Tom Nousaine, or Douglas Self, or re-create their own blind or null tests. What I have presented has been well documented in a variety of places and can be readily verified. The bulk of it isn't opinion, it's fact.
How is taking somebody's word on it a fact?


I had hoped this was a DIY forum that was open to all levels of audio DIY projects and opinions. I also hoped that people here would generally be of a more analytical mind and put more weight in statistics, measurements, logic and even common sense than your typical hardcore audiophile.


WE ARE!!!!!! You the one trying to disuade people from veiwpoints achieved from there own experiences and efforts, as well as the efforts of hundreds of others many of them talented engineers (since that seems to be the bias for credibility).
Tell me how the "don't bother some one else has already proved it doesn't matter" approach advance the art or science? Why should the opionions of a few advocates of double blind testing, clinging to a veiwpoint based on a pretty simplistic premise, outweigh the work of others with more open minds and vastly more experience.



For what it's worth, I was in no way trying to discourage anyone from building their own audio gear. As I've said many times, I know from personal experience it's a very rewarding hobby. I think there are many satisfying DIY projects including amplifiers. I've posted to other threads here trying to be as helpful as possible.
People don't have to take my word for it, they can take the word of Tom Nousaine, or Douglas Self, or re-create their own blind or null tests. What I have presented has been well documented in a variety of places and can be readily verified. The bulk of it isn't opinion, it's fact.


How is taking somebody's word on it a fact? I wasn't there to hear it or investgate to limits of the test setup. You can't tell how something sounds only by reading about someone elses listening experience


I had hoped this was a DIY forum that was open to all levels of audio DIY projects and opinions. I also hoped that people here would generally be of a more analytical mind and put more weight in statistics, measurements, logic and even common sense than your typical hardcore audiophile.


WE ARE!!!!!! You the one trying to dissuade people from viewpoints achieved from there own experiences and efforts, as well as the efforts of hundreds of others, many of them talented engineers (since that seems to be your bias for credibility).
Tell me how the "don't bother someone else has already proved it doesn't matter" approach advance the art or science? Why should the opinions of a few advocates of double blind testing, clinging to a viewpoint based on a pretty simplistic premise, outweigh the work of others with more open minds and vastly more experience?



For what it's worth, I was in no way trying to discourage anyone from building their own audio gear. As I've said many times, I know from personal experience it's a very rewarding hobby. I think there are many satisfying DIY projects including amplifiers. I've posted to other threads here trying to be as helpful as possible.


Oh Please! The very rational for this thread was to tell others that efforts to make the best sounding DIY equipment they could were bound to ultimately pointless since relatively simple nulling test and blind listening test will result in efforts no better than results achieved by buying low priced competently designed commercial amplifiers. Tell me what the rewarding part of building equipment for you is. I kind got the idea that your sense of reward was saving people from buying into the high end "hoax" you so desperately image is being perpetuated on a helpless and trusting audience here.


I was also trying to save a few folks some money. As I said early on, in light of the evidence I've presented, it would seem to make more sense to spend your amplifier budget on things that make a measurable and audible difference and not waste money on things that apparently don't. I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with that.


Now your the arbiter of what is measurable and audible and merit of the cost vs. audibility of improvements. This is something I would never dare to do, since everyone's level of involvement is different in this hobby. I don't think you have read much of the forum since approach to low effort and low cost projects are discussed as often as what you consider the delusional audiophile approach. The extreme interest in the whole gain clone thread is proof that low complexity and low cost efforts are important to a great number of people here.

I am waiting for the inevitable response about my emotional investment. I wonder if you might be the one with the greatest emotional investment, to an idea that many feel does disservice not only others but yourself as well. The vast majority of people are here to find out what might make an amplifier better and not how to prove to themselves that it makes no difference. Perhaps if you can to, if you will put away your hopeless dogma and intellectual dishonesty. We all await your "final" final
reply.

Sincerely,
Fred
 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:35 PM   #178
moamps is offline moamps  Croatia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Croatia
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Daniel

Please tell me what to explain? Are you the person belonging to the first group?
Nice. I leave this forum.
 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:52 PM   #179
diyAudio Member
 
Peter Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Send a message via AIM to Peter Daniel
Quote:
Originally posted by moamps


Nice. I leave this forum.
This reminds me very much the letter section of Stereophile magazine. If you leave the forum, you just don't find enough interest here. Usually I ask the members to reconsider this type of decision, but not this time.
__________________
www.audiosector.com
“Do something really well. See how much time it takes. It might be a product, a work of art, who knows? Then give it away cheaply, just because you feel that it should not cost so much, even if it took a lot of time and expensive materials to make it.” - JC
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:20 PM   #180
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: May 2002
Default Re: Topological acuity....

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eddy


Depends what it is that you're wanting to test.

A simple, static sinusoid stimulus is really a rather poor test signal beyond rather simple, static tests. Music signals are neither simple or static. To get an idea of a device's dynamic behavior, you need to feed it something with a bit more meat on its bones.

This is why more robust test signals such as Maximum-Length Sequences (MLS) have been developed (starting back in the mid-60s). So that devices can be tested under more dynamic conditions more closely resembling the dynamics of realworld music signals.

se
On the contrary, a single-frequency sinusoid is anything but 'static'....this is only true of pure D.C. Despite a huge variety of 'new' test signal concocted by many to approximate real music signals, (surely an impossible task!), no evidence has been presented anywhere, (and this includes the learned A.E.S), that these demonstrate deficiencies in power amps. that cannot be revealed with cosinusoidal stimuli....


Quote:
Originally posted by pmkap


HUH????
In what ways are these gainclone's topology 'near identical' to Self's complementry output topologies? Does an input ltp define the amp???
Well, whatever 'first principals' you're talking about, your arguments might make more sense if your topology comments indicated that you could actually read a schematic???
Pkamp....i have studied this particular chip's schematic with some rigour......it is infact a widlar-thomson derivative....i.e: the same topology in essence recommended by D. Self...my point is, differentiating between topologies by merely listening to them is shown to be fraudulent by the D.Self/gainclone debate on this forum...

Folks, if we all concetrate on point by point rebutals, that do not degenerate into off topic put downs, this thread would get interesting....
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2