Only when they really are audibly indistinguishable. That is the unfortunate and inescapable truth...........
Quite so. This baffled me for a log time, until I did somethiong about it, namely tried to evaluate the devices which were given low marks. Much to my surprise, some very well thought of devices really did fall short of other much cheaper but better designed devices.
Anyone denying this either has a poor system and/or hearing, or a religious belief whi9ch has nothing to do with actual hearing.
In my experience, the first things to go are a 3D presentation (usually no soundstage depth) and, as Dan pointed out, the "beefy" sound to its low frequency lines, no life, just an empty physical replay. Often, it's not a question of quantity, rather that of quality.
John, the problem is that you do not understand DBT as a mantra so many here do, and especially SY-FI, and swear on it, the good shepherad trying to tell us we do not hear what we do. They need someone else to tell them how something sounds, beside their measuring gear. And they have the cheek to call others strawmen.
Are you being truly honest here, Andrew?
When you described the sound of your CAF amp, I didn't see any reference to DBT testing, just your own say-so.
DBT testing is, at best, of limited use. Whatever the panel decides, may well be quite true of the system used at the time, but change the system and you could get very different results. What then? The refernce rig is in fact a moving target.
Last edited:
Regrading Andrew's commment on John's amp design capabilities, I confess to having had only one of John's amps, the 1205. I ran it in three domestic systems, assuming that the preamp and the CD player were above suspicion (itself a questionable assumption). With AR94 speakers, it did well, very stable soundstage, but of somewhat limited depth and heigth. With the JBL Ti600, matters improved but left me with a distinct feeling that it could do better still. As it did, with my own speakers, it then really came into its own and demonstrated flawless performance, truly a joy to listen to. Unfortunately, it was sold before I got to buying it, John's products are very rare over here because of the country's poor economic reality even as Parasound they are still very expensive by local standards.
If you read further I did a view source and noticed that. You are still an inconsiderate user of this forum.
Controlled listening (including blinding) is just a tool, well worth a try if you want to learn something about perception and a range of other applications, but it in no way guarantees correct (or even more correct) results than sighted listening (which can be controlled either up to a certain degree).
Design of a _good_ test is not an easy task....
Last edited:
Oooohhhh. You want to silence me? I feel sooooo intimidated.
It only showed up about 600 pixels wide on my screen - you gotta a problem with that? Maybe its your browser that should be blamed? Not really my problem. BTW, did you notice the sun was out and this was getting close to midnight.... you know... midnight sun.
I have a proposition for you, try being nice sometime, you might actually like it. You sound so grumpy, little things bother you? Why?
Oooohhhh. You want to silence me? I feel sooooo intimidated.
No, no idea where you got that from. I believe in free speech, even from those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I just think that intelligent people should show some consideration.
Oooh I'm alright jack sod everyone else. I don't see why I should find out what the Rasmussen approved brower if for looking at holiday snaps on an audio site.
I have a proposition for you, try being nice sometime, you might actually like it. You sound so grumpy, little things bother you? Why?
Words put in my mouth again. You have no idea how I feel. But you do have a persecution complex. Freud would have had a field day...
Hi Andrew.
Ok, so which reference ???.(rhetorical question)
Modern circuit techniques and devices can result and do result in amplifiers/systems that can be readily regarded as objectively 'distortionless' or 'blameless' wrt accepted standards/levels of hearing acuity.
Therein lies one problem/question....how are these objective standards derived ???.
I think not enough credence is given to system noise in all its forms, and the downstream consequences of inherent system noise/noises.
By this I mean replay system static white/pink noise, system 1/f noise, and most importantly signal dependent (excess) noise....in addition to standard harmonic and intermodulation distortion behaviours.
Of course these system noise behaviours interact with and modulate programme noise , and further intermodulate programme content harmonic distortions and programme content intermodulation distortions.
It is these noise forms and behaviours that distinguish very good systems from lesser systems.
These subtle but mission critical underlying system noises can be missed in relatively time short ABX testing, BUT are revealed by the discerning ear in extended listening over a range of programme content.
THIS is the reason that JC (and others) and reviewers/owners pay little heed to typical short term ABX test results.
More later.
Dan.
The ABX specter again, folks have been invited the do DBT by any protocol they choose including long term listening. Beyond just minimizing noise, the vast majority of JC's input is his own personal take on signal path issues, PIM, 7th harmonic, low OLBW, etc.
In any case has JC ever qualified his statement that the differences disappear for him ONLY in ABX DBT or is it in any no peeking test?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.