Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers - Page 19 - 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, 02:27 PM   #181
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: May 2002
Default Case in point...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann


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
Fred, with respect, i think you've missed nw-avphiles' point entirely...


 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:41 PM   #182
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default Re: Sorry...but i haven't talked design with and listened to designs from Bill Conrad of

Quote:
Originally posted by Tube_Dude


So what??
The boy friend of my daughter play cello in the Filarmonic Orchestra of Beiras (Portugal)...he rehearses sometimes at my listenig room...i go very often to concerts...but that don't mean that i must claim here that i have a golden hears...and what i think that sound good is a axiom...

Its the same that someone claim to be a expert in gastronomy because a friend or relatif is a cook in a famous restaurant...


Let' s use no personal arguments...please...because"one man ceeling is another man floor"..and the personal arguments are only valid for the person that produce this arguments...
I fear you have completely missed my point. I only meant that hearing remarkable musicians is a reminder how woefully short most equipment comes when trying reproduce music. This fact seems to be conspicuously absent in these discussions. I am afraid that you seem to have read stuff into my post that I didn't intend.

Also, and I intend no disrespect since I guess English is your second language, could you use a spell checker on your post. I am doing this myself, to try and be clearer. I appreciate you contributions to the forum, but your post make me dizzy reading them. I offer this advice to all posters, whether English is your native tongue or not. It is a real effort to read some of the post on the forum and think some of the posters points are lost. I copy the quote into my Email program and write my response there to run the spell and syntax checker. It has been very helpful to me and I think it helps to make my post clearer. I am not signaling you out as even the moderators write careless post. The computer, and especially the desire to respond quickly, cause us all to horribly abuse the English language.

The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug.

-Mark Twain
 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:48 PM   #183
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: May 2002
Smile Hi traderbam...

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. endqoute

traderbam says:
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.



......i was infact suggesting that no hitherto audible defects have been shown to be unmeasurable, and conversely..
mikek
 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:48 PM   #184
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default Re: Case in point...

Quote:
Originally posted by mikek


Fred, with respect, i think you've missed nw-avphiles' point entirely...



And with an equal amount of respect so did he. The more he posted the further he wandered away from it. Perhaps you can tell us what he meant, and in the context of all his post and not just the first one. I have been very specific in my objections to his viewpoints.
 
Old 24th March 2003, 02:55 PM   #185
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: May 2002
Smile Hi Fred..

I think his specific point is that there is no evidence, (and indeed plenty of proof to the contrary exists), that some audible defects are unmeasurable, and conversely....
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:32 PM   #186
diyAudio Member
 
Tube_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aveiro-Portugal
Default The final argument!!!...of Fred

Quote:
Also, and I intend no disrespect since I guess English is your second language, could you use a spell checker on your post. I am doing this myself, to try and be clearer. I appreciate you contributions to the forum, but your post make me dizzy reading them.
So...when there is no tecnical,arguments...nothing better that the errors in language arguments...

OK...Very gentle for the non English speakers in this forum...

In any post we can have a idea of the tecnical merit of the writer but also of is personality!!

Quote:
The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug
I would like to see you in a forum discussing tecnical issues in portuguese!!!
But one thing i can tell you..in that case.you will never see me complaint about any grammatical error that eventually you could give...but only of the technical errors!!
So we are very diferents kind of people!

PS: For the future and for simplicity of you readind...fell free to ignore my posts!!!
__________________
Jorge
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:46 PM   #187
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northwest
Default Blind rides again...

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes... you can have the last word after this one Fred, I promise.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
How is taking somebody's word on it a fact?
I'm not asking people here to believe me if they don't want to, I'M ONLY ASKING THEM TO TRY IT FOR THEMSELVES. It's likely they'll get the same results as everyone else who's done anything resembling a proper blind test.

The results of the blind studies referenced are facts, they're not subjective. You can try to fault the blind studies I referenced if you like, but the results are factual--the people doing the listening couldn't tell the difference and some admitted as much. Likewise, the results of null testing are factual. So are the components used in studio gear. ALL of these things can be verified to be true.

By comparison, the high-end crowd's argument that say different brands of poly capacitors sound different has no basis in scientific fact. You can't measure the differences and you apparently can't hear them when you remove the bias of knowing which one you're listening to.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
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).
If by suggesting people try removing the bias of knowing what they're listening to, or try some experiments with null testing, I'm changing their viewpoints, then I guess I'm guilty.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
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.
There are far more than "a few advocates" of blind testing once you get away from the rarified air of high-end esoteric audio. It's widely used, advocated and respected elsewhere. But even within high-end audio, there are people who have verifiable credentials (like Tom Nousaine and Douglas Self--both widely published authors) who's experience I prefer to respect over a few anonymous people posting to an online forum.

Further, your argument appears to be based almost entirely on subjective non-blind listening that you and others have done. The whole science behind blind testing shows the way you listen is subject to huge errors in perception.

And you keep saying "simplistic" as if that's a negative thing. Some would argue both blind testing and null testing are elegantly simple in their ability to take all that matters into account. It's a BENEFIT that they're simplistic, in that they do not require exotic equipment, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
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.
I'm glad you think you know my rational better than I do? I've stated my rational several times: Help people focus on the things that make an objective difference. I was only trying to provide the tools to help them towards that goal.

While a DIY amplifier may not outperform a commercial one, at least in terms of it's overall "sound", that's no reason not to build it! You can still have the satisfaction of listening to something you built, and you can also improve it in other ways over a commercial design (i.e. lower cost, increased current capability, custom features, unique packaging, etc.).
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
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.
It's like the difference between buying or building your own furniture, or sailboat. What you end up with might not be any better than something you could have purchased commercially, but you have the pride and satisfaction in having gone off the beaten path and built it yourself. Not many people build their own audio gear. It's relatively unique and can be a creative expression in terms of the packaging (just look at the amazing metal work Peter Daniel has done as an example).
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
Now your the arbiter of what is measurable and audible and merit of the cost vs. audibility of improvements..
Not at all! I only suggest people use blind testing to determine the "audible" part. That way if someone does have really amazing hearing/listening skills, they might end up spending more money than someone who doesn't. With null testing, it's the same thing, it's just an addition tool in the arsenal to help people make informed decisions.

For example: If the difference signal from a null test (with real music driving real speakers) is unchanged by swapping out a capacitor, a very strong case can be made that capacitor doesn't make any difference under those real-world conditions. So in that case, people should think about using the cheaper one. I don't think that makes me an "arbiter" at all.

It would be like advising someone who's modifying their car's engine they might want to head down to the local shop with the dynomometer to have them take before and after horsepower and torque measurements. Or, if that's a bit too much hassle, at least they should carry a stop watch with them and try to clock 0-60 runs on the same stretch of ground so they can have a basis for what they're doing and what effect the changes they're making have.

By your argument, the person should just modify the engine, take the car out, drive it for a while, and purely by the seat of their pants, decide which modifications are best. Never mind the huge subjective bias of having invested time and money and wanting that to pay off. Never mind the car may actually be slower than before they modified it. Never mind that hours or days may go by between the "before" and the "after" test drives clouding their memory and further hampering their ability to make a fair comparison.

It comes down to this: IF BETTER TOOLS EXIST, WHY NOT USE THEM???
Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
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..
Let them (hopefully) find ways to make them better in WAYS THAT CAN SURVIVE OBJECTIVE TESTING (including blind listening tests). The FDA won't let drugs on the market merely because the manufacture THINKS they help people. They have to go through rigorous BLIND studies to PROVE they work before they're allowed onto the market. Any improvements folks here come up with for amplifiers should be subject to some sort of reasonable scrutiny that doesn't involve psychological bias.

When it comes to sound quality (or fidelity if you prefer that word), we already know how to make an amplifier that has no sonic flaws. A good example is the Doug Self "blameless" amplifier. If you want to improve on that, you need to do something like increase the efficiency, or make it simpler and cheaper to build, or make it drive one ohm loads, or develop new protection circuitry, or adapt it to other designs, find creative new ways to package it, etc. There's a lot left to work with!

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been working with digital amplifiers which, on paper, have a number of benefits over conventional ones. They still have room for audible improvement, however. I've done fairly extensive blind testing of a TriPath spread spectrum Class T amp and a high quality conventional amp and the TriPath stands out like a sore thumb in blind testing. It has a harshness in the high frequencies that's audible. So if someone here can find a cure for the TriPath's ills, that would be a big step forward (and they could probably sell it to TriPath!).

Quote:
Originally posted by Fred Dieckmann
Perhaps if you can to, if you will put away your hopeless dogma and intellectual dishonesty. We all await your "final" final reply.
Do others really think I'm being dishonest? Again, all the concepts I've presented can be readily verified. If you choose to think that myself, Doug Self, Tom Nousaine and the countless others who have said similar things are all lying to you, that's your choice I guess.
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:50 PM   #188
diyAudio Member
 
Tube_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aveiro-Portugal
Quote:
Originally posted by analog_sa
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
Yes the logical im my test is the same that of the Hafler test!

Yes group delays will introduce problems in tube amplifiers...but this problems are also at work in the feedback loop...because as you say if the amp produce group delay the feedback is also delayed and can't correct the errors in time...

So we have two problems...not one.
__________________
Jorge
 
Old 24th March 2003, 03:54 PM   #189
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
As the great economist Thomas Sowell once said, "simplistic" means that I disagree with you but I don't have a good counterargument.

I'd recommend to anyone getting involved in this stuff the book "Flim-Flam" by James Randi. You'll see some eerily similar arguments to those put forth against doing controlled listening tests. The dowsing chapter is particularly illuminating.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
 
Old 24th March 2003, 04:06 PM   #190
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default Re: Re: Topological acuity....

Quote:
Originally posted by mikek


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....



It surely an impossible task, why waste time on it. And no evidence ever will be presented I guess because the test are perfect. What the heck do you do for a living? You sound sort like an engineer, but I can't imagine that. The first time anybody asked you to do anything challenging I would think you would say it can't be done because somebody else said it couldn't be done, or it had never done it. My last boss would have eaten you alive. In the telecom industry, I have worked on plenty of task, troubleshooting, measurements, and designs that:

A. Had never been done before.
B. Couldn't ever be done.
C. Would cost to much.
D. Couldn't be measured because someone else could not measure it.
E. Could never be done within a certain time.

In fact most of the engineering I have done in conflict one or more of the previous objections. This constant fall back on the established engineering orthodoxy and status quo is ridiculous. Most of the papers in the AES Journal are written by academics with a particular agenda and little or no experience designing audio. If Dougless Self is a brilliant designer why doesn't he have a string of successful commercial products out there. I have never seen any. I guess its all be cause of the great audiophile conspiracy.

This dredging up the XL-280 and Hafler test is interesting too. I looked at the schematic and it very much looks to be an Erno
Borbely design based on the parts choice and topology. There are lots of 1% metal film resistors, polypropylene caps, polycarbonate caps, and even two carbon comp resistors. The Toshiba Jfets in the front end are are favorite of many of the lunatic fringe set. In fact many of these part types are what the "tweaker delusional audiophile" set recommend. Erno Borbely is a very talented audio designer with a string of successful commercial designs. He is an advocate of measurements and has written articles on distortion measurement. He also talks about the sound of different passive components. How could that be?
 

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 10:24 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