In terms of objective measrements, Scott, I agree.
Unfortunately, leavuing the domain of sine waves and moving on to real world music signal, things atsrt to slip slide. It's not too hard tp find two very similar amps with very similar DC range specs whih quickly demonstrate that how we hear that nominally same sound can be VERY different. All right, one could argue that one has a better DC servo circuit than the other, or that one has a better PSU than the other, etc, all potentially valid arguments.
Over the years, I have had an opportunity to try out quite a number of phono RIAA boards. As all others, some were better than others, and some actually offer superb sound however I look at it. I refer to the unit posted some days ago right here. Although I think and hear it as an unusually good device, its bass lines, using a Dual CS604 DD TT, with an Ortofon 2MBlue brand new cartridge (providing healthy 5 mv/1 kHz/5 cm), are not as convincing as via the discrete Luxman C-03 equivalent. The op amp circuit is superbly clear and from say 500 Hz upwards will take the Luxman on an even ground, but its kickdrum, or tympani, bass lines, although clean and clear as a whistle, simply does not carry the weight of the Luxman; it has an excellent overall quality of sound, but lacking the convincing gravitas of the Lux discrete. In all cases, only highest quality of Decca Šhase 4 LPs were usedand some others.
That said, I should add that I'm planning a "new" version which will have pairs of BJTs as current boosters. If I'm right, that should end the debate and turn the Luxman into a memory of the times past when manufacturers did walk the whole 9 yards, as it was done during the days when the CD was only just beginning to appear.
I suppose I should also clearly state that as a young man, I did bang on some drum kits in my time, and am (naturally, I think) almost certainly unusually sensitive to bass lines. In addition to this, I am definitely spoilt by using acoustic suspension speakers, which do have an unusually clean and clear bass (AR5, later AR94, 1973-2003), and now own speakers just like that, but reaching down a bit deeper and still more linear, thus exposing whatever is there (or not) quite clearly.
This is further aided by substantial power (170W/8) into a relatively efficient speaker system (92 dB/2.83V/1 m), meaing that if required, the ooomph is there for the taking.
This is further aided by substantial power (170W/8) into a relatively efficient speaker system (92 dB/2.83V/1 m), meaing that if required, the ooomph is there for the taking.
Steppenwolf:
"Like a true nature's child,
you were born to be wild."...
That's because you're rocking the objectivists' boat, John. Doing your own Boston tea party here.
Really not sure anything in audio can be compared to the Boston tea party.
There is of course another, perfectly valid conjecture, which is that audio amplification got as good as it needed to be 25 years ago and JC's favoured design met that bar for goodliness ( and continues to do so by the awards parasound gets). I can't prove that conjecture, but sillier ideas are proposed every day in the audio press
Here is the loss across a small signal relay with silver contacts. The source is balanced 1000 ohms to 1 ohm to 1000 ohms with the relay across the 1 ohm resistor. The open circuit voltage is 1 mV and the closed circuit voltage is just under 15 uV at 10,000 Hz. That corresponds to 15 milliohms of contact resistance. So the issue under test is if the resistance is ohmic with regards to level and frequency.
Turns out the voltage across the contacts drops by 15% from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
Turns out the voltage across the contacts drops by 15% from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
Attachments
Last edited:
Acid comes quickly through mind. Pink elephants were also consistently reported.
Haven't heard of that but if Frank Zappa ever cut a fart and mixed it to stereo, I'd buy it.
Is that your take on the HP 4328A Milliohmeter? It used AC excitation (for a whole lot of good reasons) and measured only the resistive vector.
Verifying over a frequency range is really difficult. I found that at milliOhms the inductance of a short wire can be significant. What you may be seeing is the inductance of the series impedance affecting the reading. i know low inductance milliOhm resistors are not common. In fact they are really hard to make. I believe JNeutron showed one way and that would be a good starting point for checking the test system.
I was given a copy of a manual for a Siemens contact tester that looked for momentary variations on contact resistance. I was interested but the instrument was far too involved to hatch a copy. Essentially it applied an HF signal across the contacts and any variation in the amplitude was recorded.
The closest I could find in The Real Frank Zappa Book is this statement:
"Music, in performance, is a type of sculpture. The air in the performance space is sculpted into something. This 'molecule-sculpture-over-time' is then 'looked at' by the ears of the listeners - or a microphone." [Emphasis his]
Somewhere, maybe in another FZ book, he describes this sculpture actually materializing, achieving a more or less concrete form.
Tbh, though, it isn't clear to me why this topic was introduced in the context of fidelity, hearing, and blind testing. Interestingly quirky brain process... for sure.
Or you can be not enough educated to concentrate your attention where it matters, and do not notice audibles artifacts.
That the reason why we NEVER record them together.The bass line has nothing to do with drums, so not sure of the correlation there
(Oh, Lord) !!!!!
Which would only support the point I make, no? Unless you're saying you magically get better hearing when you're not testing? I'm sure there's many an athlete that would love to claim better performance when no one is looking (myself included!).
And I suggest a change in rules that allows defining me as a huckster and a swindler.
Just stop the slander. That's all.
Still, on topic that has nothing to do with how I pay my bills, you still have not addressed a single legitimate concern that I have raised, you have only repeated your dogma. We must be able to question it, or we are all just really lost. That's not the science I was taught.
Now I am willing to have THAT discussion, but that gives you no right to turn to slander - so can we have an understanding on that?
Mental process required by the 'listener' is a variable that cannot be eliminated by double-blind tests, but it can be addressed in other ways. Yes, I do believe in blind tests. They must be so blind that the person whose ears are being used does not even know that he is a part of a test and hence he is making no conscious decisions as would a normal listener. We are talking about tests that require guile and hence the opportunity is rare, but when that opportunity arises, the listener is not even aware and hence his reaction becomes entirely natural and not forced. I have done tests like this and they are not flawed, but quite willing to engage on possibilities if others see something. In that area I believe I have a more open mind.
Maybe we should call this kind of test "totally blind test" because he is blind and totally in the dark.
People like me, who have worked with and in recording studios will tell you that they use their ears every day and unless able to do that, they would soon be out of business.
Take for example speakers that audiophiles use, they have typical L-R crossovers which may be technically correct by orthodox standards. There is a good reason why many studios don't use them and use active setups. Because they have way better, indeed far better, resolution than most 'audiophile' speakers. It is very difficult to make a truly high resolution speaker using passive crossover components, not impossible, just much more difficult and most speaker designers just go with the flow and hence many audiophile speakers are mediocre and audio magazines, with a few exceptions here and now, don't throw a spotlight on it. Hearing a master tape or direct feed into the control room of a studio with speakers we used, that would astonish most audiophiles. It is nothing like you would hear in a hi-fi shop.
Now I dread somebody conducting a double-blind test with speakers that just makes everything sound smooth and boring, because that is true with a vast number of speakers out there. They even laud that smoothness, the blind leading the blind. Any product I would submit to your kind of test, I would for a start want to know what speakers are used. I would in many cases actually prefer flawed fullrange speakers - because they have a chance as the have no crossovers and are genuine point source and have a predictable power response. Down here a new research project is being established into understand how current gets easily corrupted in crossovers and produces a noise floor that kills fine details and produces nauseatingly boring smoothness.
I believe I have many valid concerns - I don't reject so-called 'anecdotal' evidence and don't even use the term. There are people I know who over many years of listening intently at what comes to their ears and hence capable of producing the very music that you want to use in double-blind tests - that is a weird dichotomy.
Experienced listeners who use their ears day in and day out, they do really exist. People like Barry Wolifson of Chesky Records, who was partners with Phil Punch in Electric Avenue Studios here in Sydney before moving to the States, don't tell me he doesn't know how to use his ears and trust them. He knows the pitfalls and has the experience to deal with them (I can mention more by their names, they are true professionals). That is what he does for a living and I would rather trust his ears than a contrived tests that I have legitimate concerns about. He is likely to hear things your untrained listener would not hear.
So I am quite willing to discuss these things - but with civility. I am not ashamed of what I do day in and day out and my motives are not to be impugned.
And we should never slap down those who have views that are different from our own, this impedes free speech and a free flow of ideas - a hypothesis is never proven, it can only survive falsification. Any of us are allowed to challenge entrenched ideas - or else where is progress to come from?
There are no holy cows in audio.
Last edited:
No need for any changes, see rule #1. And the bully doesn't get to judge his own behavior, since the rules would then be meaningless.
THE RULES
NOT ALLOWED:
1. Insulting, intimidating, bullying, harassing or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior.
Last edited:
Who said-this ?
Man, I use measuring instruments since the first day i was interested in electronic. I'm interested in electronic for only one reason: Music is as important for me than the air I breath.
As my mother was a Pianist, as I recorded so many pianos in my life, nothing strange that I can recognize instant a Steinway from a Bechstein from a Yamaha. And a luck that I can figure out what misses in their recordings/reproductions without magic voodoo like double ABX blind tests from the kitchen.
Read the response of Joe Rasmussen.
Joe one of my best gauges for a good change in a system is when a women makes a point to say it sounds especially good, or ask if something was changed; one whom otherwise doesn't pay any attention (99% of them?). They are generally as blind to the hobby as it gets, they're literally just asking because they noticed something without looking.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.