The sound of....distortion!!!!
Yes thats the beauty of this method, you can use it with music ,and you can even hear the distortion...instead of a osciloscop use a second amp...conected the same way as the osciloscope!!!
Bingo...then you actualy can hear the distortion residual!!
Interesting??...Isn't it???
Peter Daniel said:
Ooops! I must haven't been paying enough attention to this fascinating subject.
So this test works well with dynamic signals as well? Interesting...
Yes thats the beauty of this method, you can use it with music ,and you can even hear the distortion...instead of a osciloscop use a second amp...conected the same way as the osciloscope!!!
Bingo...then you actualy can hear the distortion residual!!
Interesting??...Isn't it???
flying blind
Sorry to spilt the post.
You seem to presume to know a lot about my listening methodology and experience. I have been involved in modification, evaluation, and design of high end audio equipment for about a decade a half. I have designed commercial products for Audient Technologies for several years, to favorable reviews in Fi, Positive Feedback, and Audio Adventures. I have had the chance for discussions with and experience with recordings by Keith Johnson of The Dallas Wind Symphony in which my wife plays. I have talked design with and listened to designs from Bill Conrad of Conrad-Johnson, Jeff Rowland, Nelson Pass, Jim Aud of Purist Audio, Ron Hedrich of Marigo Audio Labs, Chris Sommevigo of Illuminati, Dennis Boyle of Chimera labs and many other talented designers and audiophiles. Yes is it an investment in time, money, and learning with the payback of enjoyment. I am not trying to sell anybody anything or push any agenda.
I have the pleasure to hear Cecilia Bartoli sing Rossini and to experience I Musichi playing Vivaldi, an experience that went beyond just listening to music. I find the discussions of the shortcomings of audio equipment in contrast to live music to be curiously absent in your post. I guess I view it more as a life experience than as an investment that anything could make me regret. I have heard productive blind listening test and very unsuccessful blind listening test. I have heard the small details to a design that can make surprising improvements in a system. It is not for everyone and I can't guarantee the same results. I share only my experiences with no strings attached. The interested can take what is useful to them and ignore the rest. I lose nothing and gain only the pleasure of sharing the pleasure and learning I have received in the journey.
"Bursting my balloon and belief system with mere factual information" would require some knowledge of my believe system and how I came to develop it as well as the presentation of actual factual information. It involves no mysticism but only the results of hundreds of hours learning and discovery. I have never felt this to be in conflict with my training and work as an engineer. Designing digital cables and digital interface devices lead to further research into transmission line theory and RF design. That knowledge helped me get a job in telecom working with Signal Integrity, EMI reduction, and protection circuit design. This was another return on my investment in learning from my audio engineering experience. None of my engineering coworkers seem to hold this experience in the disdain that you, also an "engineer" seem to express. 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. The majority of us here are not trying to urge people to spend large amounts of money to build something that will be a status symbol for a very small number of fellow enthusiast. 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. Your failure and rationalization for it will hardly discourage many here but will more likely inspire more people to embark on the journey you have so strongly refused to take. We will struggle on without you somehow, since we have seen this kind of ridicule before, but seldom from someone who seemed to begin this journey with the same motivations we have.
Happy constructing and listening to everyone! This is a ironic closing considering your view on constructing good equipment and its contribution to the listening experience.
Sorry to spilt the post.
You seem to presume to know a lot about my listening methodology and experience. I have been involved in modification, evaluation, and design of high end audio equipment for about a decade a half. I have designed commercial products for Audient Technologies for several years, to favorable reviews in Fi, Positive Feedback, and Audio Adventures. I have had the chance for discussions with and experience with recordings by Keith Johnson of The Dallas Wind Symphony in which my wife plays. I have talked design with and listened to designs from Bill Conrad of Conrad-Johnson, Jeff Rowland, Nelson Pass, Jim Aud of Purist Audio, Ron Hedrich of Marigo Audio Labs, Chris Sommevigo of Illuminati, Dennis Boyle of Chimera labs and many other talented designers and audiophiles. Yes is it an investment in time, money, and learning with the payback of enjoyment. I am not trying to sell anybody anything or push any agenda.
I have the pleasure to hear Cecilia Bartoli sing Rossini and to experience I Musichi playing Vivaldi, an experience that went beyond just listening to music. I find the discussions of the shortcomings of audio equipment in contrast to live music to be curiously absent in your post. I guess I view it more as a life experience than as an investment that anything could make me regret. I have heard productive blind listening test and very unsuccessful blind listening test. I have heard the small details to a design that can make surprising improvements in a system. It is not for everyone and I can't guarantee the same results. I share only my experiences with no strings attached. The interested can take what is useful to them and ignore the rest. I lose nothing and gain only the pleasure of sharing the pleasure and learning I have received in the journey.
"Bursting my balloon and belief system with mere factual information" would require some knowledge of my believe system and how I came to develop it as well as the presentation of actual factual information. It involves no mysticism but only the results of hundreds of hours learning and discovery. I have never felt this to be in conflict with my training and work as an engineer. Designing digital cables and digital interface devices lead to further research into transmission line theory and RF design. That knowledge helped me get a job in telecom working with Signal Integrity, EMI reduction, and protection circuit design. This was another return on my investment in learning from my audio engineering experience. None of my engineering coworkers seem to hold this experience in the disdain that you, also an "engineer" seem to express. 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. The majority of us here are not trying to urge people to spend large amounts of money to build something that will be a status symbol for a very small number of fellow enthusiast. 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. Your failure and rationalization for it will hardly discourage many here but will more likely inspire more people to embark on the journey you have so strongly refused to take. We will struggle on without you somehow, since we have seen this kind of ridicule before, but seldom from someone who seemed to begin this journey with the same motivations we have.
Happy constructing and listening to everyone! This is a ironic closing considering your view on constructing good equipment and its contribution to the listening experience.
I know this thread is getting a bit serious, but I'd like to add some things....
When I upgraded to a cyrus2 amp from my old jvc, I didn't really hear a difference....However..
When said cyrus went pop, and I put the old jvc back into service, my wife even noticed the drop in quality.....She said it sounded flat.....I'd have said there was a lack of attack, and a veiling of low level detail but still.....
My wife has no interest in hifi, and would not be affected by the placebo effect type stuff....Also notice that I didn't really notice the upgrade until I went back to the old amp some 18months later....
I don't think you can judge an amp in an a/b listening test.....You need to use the amp for a few months with lots of different music etc in order to make a fair critique....What sounds good with 4/5 records may not sound best with all the other records in your collection.....
Oh and Fred.....I'm thinking of you as Rutger Haeur at the end of Bladerunner saying (I'm not taking the p*ss btw..I agree with you....)
""I have the pleasure to hear Cecilia Bartoli sing Rossini and to experience I Musichi playing Vivaldi, an experience that went beyond just listening to music. I find the discussions of the shortcomings of audio equipment in contrast to live music to be curiously absent in your post. I guess I view it more as a life experience than as an investment that anything could make me regret. I have heard productive blind listening test and very unsuccessful blind listening test. I have heard the small details to a design that can make surprising improvements in a system. It is not for everyone and I can't guarantee the same results. I share only my experiences with no strings attached. The interested can take what is useful to them and ignore the rest. I lose nothing and gain only the pleasure of sharing the pleasure and learning I have received in the journey.""
When I upgraded to a cyrus2 amp from my old jvc, I didn't really hear a difference....However..
When said cyrus went pop, and I put the old jvc back into service, my wife even noticed the drop in quality.....She said it sounded flat.....I'd have said there was a lack of attack, and a veiling of low level detail but still.....
My wife has no interest in hifi, and would not be affected by the placebo effect type stuff....Also notice that I didn't really notice the upgrade until I went back to the old amp some 18months later....
I don't think you can judge an amp in an a/b listening test.....You need to use the amp for a few months with lots of different music etc in order to make a fair critique....What sounds good with 4/5 records may not sound best with all the other records in your collection.....
Oh and Fred.....I'm thinking of you as Rutger Haeur at the end of Bladerunner saying (I'm not taking the p*ss btw..I agree with you....)
""I have the pleasure to hear Cecilia Bartoli sing Rossini and to experience I Musichi playing Vivaldi, an experience that went beyond just listening to music. I find the discussions of the shortcomings of audio equipment in contrast to live music to be curiously absent in your post. I guess I view it more as a life experience than as an investment that anything could make me regret. I have heard productive blind listening test and very unsuccessful blind listening test. I have heard the small details to a design that can make surprising improvements in a system. It is not for everyone and I can't guarantee the same results. I share only my experiences with no strings attached. The interested can take what is useful to them and ignore the rest. I lose nothing and gain only the pleasure of sharing the pleasure and learning I have received in the journey.""
Sorry...but i haven't talked design with and listened to designs from Bill Conrad of
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...
It´s 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...
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...
It´s 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...
Fred:
In the field where I'm professionally involved these days (wine), there's a "system" of thought on viticulture called Biodynamics. It is a descendent of theosophy and embraces a number of occult beliefs like burying a cow's horn filled with silica at the corner of the vineyard, but only at the full moon. And homeopathic vineyard treatments.
Most of what Biodynamics offers is rather implausible and has no rigorous evidence. Yet Biodynamicists make, as a group, better wine than average. Does that mean that horns full of silica at the full moon or homeopathy are a significant factor in wine quality? Or is it an effect of what I call "footprints in the vineyard?" The guy who will take the time and effort to do the cow horn and homeopathy baloney is the same guy who will carefully monitor the soil conditions. He'll be out in the vineyard extra often, pruning vine by vine, tending each one in an individual manner.
I think the analogy is obvious.
In the field where I'm professionally involved these days (wine), there's a "system" of thought on viticulture called Biodynamics. It is a descendent of theosophy and embraces a number of occult beliefs like burying a cow's horn filled with silica at the corner of the vineyard, but only at the full moon. And homeopathic vineyard treatments.
Most of what Biodynamics offers is rather implausible and has no rigorous evidence. Yet Biodynamicists make, as a group, better wine than average. Does that mean that horns full of silica at the full moon or homeopathy are a significant factor in wine quality? Or is it an effect of what I call "footprints in the vineyard?" The guy who will take the time and effort to do the cow horn and homeopathy baloney is the same guy who will carefully monitor the soil conditions. He'll be out in the vineyard extra often, pruning vine by vine, tending each one in an individual manner.
I think the analogy is obvious.
analogies
Sorry, but I just had to chime in.
ANother analogy. It is believed that eating bran in the morning will lower one's cholesterol. However, bran comes in the form of carbohydrates. Eating carbohydrates in the morning will produce an insulin surge that will take available glucose and turn it into fat. In other words, eating carbs in the a.m. can make you lose weight. The only cholesterol that bran will reduce is the availability of absorbable cholesterol present in the GI tract. If one is eating bran, one is likely not gorging on eggs and steak. Therefore, we conclude that bran reduces cholesterol. But, there are no bran pills, are there?
It also turns out that if someone makes a conscious effort to eat bran in the a.m. they are also making conscious efforts throughout the day to watch their diet. So, in the long run, they will likely get healthier.
If someone goes through the trouble of getting a high quality amp, they likely have better components elsewhere.
If one is to do blind, AB, or whatever testing, it has to be beyond just swapping an amplifier in and out. I think that I recall that earlier in this thread, someone mentioned performing the blind testing with KEFs. Try it again with other speakers and other types of speakers. Is the source good enough and dynamic enough to take full advantage of each amp. There are people in these forums that have changes small aspects of their components and have realized differences when they didn't expect to and no differences when they expected them. This can't be overlooked.
I suppose one could take an oscilloscope and compare the outputs of amplifiers. But, even there, one would still not get a true representation of how an amplifier would respond under real world loads.
To the person who originally stated that because no differences were found that there existed no difference. I think that you only just started the process. You have a long way to go. That's why it is so easy for many to jump in and make comments (like me.)
But, don't stop being skeptical. Without skeptics, we don't have others to prove things to and it is too easy to convince oneself.
-Vic
PS in my other life I am in the medical profession, specializing the area of neurological sciences. I am very aware of blind testing and the process since I have published several papers and have been on several institutional review boards where we examine others' research protocols.
Sorry, but I just had to chime in.
ANother analogy. It is believed that eating bran in the morning will lower one's cholesterol. However, bran comes in the form of carbohydrates. Eating carbohydrates in the morning will produce an insulin surge that will take available glucose and turn it into fat. In other words, eating carbs in the a.m. can make you lose weight. The only cholesterol that bran will reduce is the availability of absorbable cholesterol present in the GI tract. If one is eating bran, one is likely not gorging on eggs and steak. Therefore, we conclude that bran reduces cholesterol. But, there are no bran pills, are there?
It also turns out that if someone makes a conscious effort to eat bran in the a.m. they are also making conscious efforts throughout the day to watch their diet. So, in the long run, they will likely get healthier.
If someone goes through the trouble of getting a high quality amp, they likely have better components elsewhere.
If one is to do blind, AB, or whatever testing, it has to be beyond just swapping an amplifier in and out. I think that I recall that earlier in this thread, someone mentioned performing the blind testing with KEFs. Try it again with other speakers and other types of speakers. Is the source good enough and dynamic enough to take full advantage of each amp. There are people in these forums that have changes small aspects of their components and have realized differences when they didn't expect to and no differences when they expected them. This can't be overlooked.
I suppose one could take an oscilloscope and compare the outputs of amplifiers. But, even there, one would still not get a true representation of how an amplifier would respond under real world loads.
To the person who originally stated that because no differences were found that there existed no difference. I think that you only just started the process. You have a long way to go. That's why it is so easy for many to jump in and make comments (like me.)
But, don't stop being skeptical. Without skeptics, we don't have others to prove things to and it is too easy to convince oneself.
-Vic
PS in my other life I am in the medical profession, specializing the area of neurological sciences. I am very aware of blind testing and the process since I have published several papers and have been on several institutional review boards where we examine others' research protocols.
Re: flying blind
to Fred Dieckmann
you have quoted incorrectly, and ironic at all
I'm afraid you sorry doesn't count.
to nw_avphile
I agree with your ideas, but I don't think that Hafler circuit show the best correlation between measurements and sound quality. FFT analyses tell much more. IMO
to Peter Daniel
your words:
"The person who started the current thread seems to be very enthusiastic about his point of view, yet to me it seems like we are talking here about apples and oranges. If I can use a good analogy I could compare it to a discussion between two types of people. One type have never had sex and they just talk about it using their imagination and try to describe it the best way they feel appropriate. Second type, had sex and they know what it's all about. There is no way they can pass their experience and sensations they were subjected to, to the group of the people who never had it."
You are moderator here. Can you explain this? Or maybe put yourself in sinbin for few days.
MU
BScEE
Fred Dieckmann said:
to Fred Dieckmann
you have quoted incorrectly, and ironic at all
I'm afraid you sorry doesn't count.
to nw_avphile
I agree with your ideas, but I don't think that Hafler circuit show the best correlation between measurements and sound quality. FFT analyses tell much more. IMO
to Peter Daniel
your words:
"The person who started the current thread seems to be very enthusiastic about his point of view, yet to me it seems like we are talking here about apples and oranges. If I can use a good analogy I could compare it to a discussion between two types of people. One type have never had sex and they just talk about it using their imagination and try to describe it the best way they feel appropriate. Second type, had sex and they know what it's all about. There is no way they can pass their experience and sensations they were subjected to, to the group of the people who never had it."
You are moderator here. Can you explain this? Or maybe put yourself in sinbin for few days.
MU
BScEE
WOW !! ..... You guys have been busy
The "line in the sand" has been drawn by Fred, and with this I have absolutely no argument:
This is what I stated (in different words) way back on page #2. Dare I be arrogant enough to quote myself (I know no-one else would):
The poor originator of this thread (God bless his naive & deluded socks!) was I believe motivated by trying to protect some of our number from the outrageous marketing and profiteering which is ever pervasive throughout the audio industry...... best likened to the "snake oil" of the 1900's or women's cosmetics today ;-)
There does, I believe, need to be some semblance of objectivity somewhere in the assessment process and I think that the processes suggested (both of them) are of greater value than simple "bench-testing", which I think we all agree has been found wanting.
The polarised camps:
1. all objectivity is bad, subjectivity rules! and
2. subjectivity is pseudoscience and objectivity rules!
...... are likely both wrong.
cheers
mark
PS: The comments about this thread being hi-jacked seem fair. Other people have been spoken to about "advertising" on the forum. Seems odd that one of our moderators would walk this path.
The "line in the sand" has been drawn by Fred, and with this I have absolutely no argument:
Conceded!
This is what I stated (in different words) way back on page #2. Dare I be arrogant enough to quote myself (I know no-one else would):
So long at Fred et al are talking about art and accepting that appreciation is in the "ear of the beholder", then no-one here can argue otherwise.
The poor originator of this thread (God bless his naive & deluded socks!) was I believe motivated by trying to protect some of our number from the outrageous marketing and profiteering which is ever pervasive throughout the audio industry...... best likened to the "snake oil" of the 1900's or women's cosmetics today ;-)
There does, I believe, need to be some semblance of objectivity somewhere in the assessment process and I think that the processes suggested (both of them) are of greater value than simple "bench-testing", which I think we all agree has been found wanting.
The polarised camps:
1. all objectivity is bad, subjectivity rules! and
2. subjectivity is pseudoscience and objectivity rules!
...... are likely both wrong.
cheers
mark
PS: The comments about this thread being hi-jacked seem fair. Other people have been spoken to about "advertising" on the forum. Seems odd that one of our moderators would walk this path.
Re: WOW !! ..... You guys have been busy
I was only replying to a member, but if it bothers you, consider my info removed. Technically, this is not a commercial product yet, but still a prototype. Seeing something like that on a forum, would rather benefit the members than cause damage. Yet obviously, some of you can't handle that. Sorry for hijacking the thread.
PS. Being a moderator doesn't make me any different from other members of this forum, so please refrain from such allusions.
mefinnis said:
I was only replying to a member, but if it bothers you, consider my info removed. Technically, this is not a commercial product yet, but still a prototype. Seeing something like that on a forum, would rather benefit the members than cause damage. Yet obviously, some of you can't handle that. Sorry for hijacking the thread.
PS. Being a moderator doesn't make me any different from other members of this forum, so please refrain from such allusions.
Jorge,
Oscilloscopes don't tell the whole story. WHat about impedence vs. frequency. What about current output vs. impedence?
There are a lot of variables to consider. And there will be a lot of discussion. I think that's the point of all of this as long as it remains cordial and informative. I think there are a lot of informed people here with good input. Just because they differ does not make them wrong.
My
Vic
Oscilloscopes don't tell the whole story. WHat about impedence vs. frequency. What about current output vs. impedence?
There are a lot of variables to consider. And there will be a lot of discussion. I think that's the point of all of this as long as it remains cordial and informative. I think there are a lot of informed people here with good input. Just because they differ does not make them wrong.
My
Vic
This indeed is a 'fun' thread...
.....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.
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).
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.
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 rerseves, 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.
Peter Daniel said:
.....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.
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).
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.
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 rerseves, 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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.