I wish I had an application for it so I could buy it
Jan
I'll take it as 'it' being the amplifier
I am still interested in making 'better' audio designs. I tend to specialize in analog electronics, because I find it a vast subject by itself, and if I am going to learn something 'new' then I have to concentrate in that area. That doesn't mean that speaker design, digital design, or even wire design is not interesting, it is just that I have less knowledge in these areas to effectively improve in these other areas.
However, there is one great equalizer. That is actually listening carefully sometimes to different audio products and attempts to higher fidelity, and deciding whether something sounds better than usual or not. The vast majority of us can do this without advanced degrees, vast practical experience in audio, or even playing a musical instrument. The problem is that the majority of people are told that what they hear is not relevant, because of the possibility that they might be 'duped' by someone in the audio industry who is only out there to 'dupe' people through marketing to sell a product to get money. This 'myth' was started by the double-blind group in previous decades and has kept people from actually trusting their own personal senses, to a far greater proportion than in the past. This is unfortunate, because it fosters cynicism, and inhibits new audio ideas.
Now why do I bring this up NOW? Well, I just went back 20 years to find a paper from the 100th AES Convention that somehow I had overlooked, that appears interesting and important. Yet I am pretty sure that this paper has been debated by many of my critics here, and dismissed. Am I right?
The paper is: 'Measurement of a Neglected Circuit Characteristic' by Gerard Perrot.
This paper appears to parallel much of our work over the last 40 years when we are TRYING to improve audio, rather than dismiss it as easy and already done. I'm glad that somebody I don't know is still trying.
However, there is one great equalizer. That is actually listening carefully sometimes to different audio products and attempts to higher fidelity, and deciding whether something sounds better than usual or not. The vast majority of us can do this without advanced degrees, vast practical experience in audio, or even playing a musical instrument. The problem is that the majority of people are told that what they hear is not relevant, because of the possibility that they might be 'duped' by someone in the audio industry who is only out there to 'dupe' people through marketing to sell a product to get money. This 'myth' was started by the double-blind group in previous decades and has kept people from actually trusting their own personal senses, to a far greater proportion than in the past. This is unfortunate, because it fosters cynicism, and inhibits new audio ideas.
Now why do I bring this up NOW? Well, I just went back 20 years to find a paper from the 100th AES Convention that somehow I had overlooked, that appears interesting and important. Yet I am pretty sure that this paper has been debated by many of my critics here, and dismissed. Am I right?
The paper is: 'Measurement of a Neglected Circuit Characteristic' by Gerard Perrot.
This paper appears to parallel much of our work over the last 40 years when we are TRYING to improve audio, rather than dismiss it as easy and already done. I'm glad that somebody I don't know is still trying.
John, I don't think that's quite it. What seems more likely to me is that some people have some learned, or innate, ability to listen for and notice things like very low level distortion or noise, but most people don't.
To further complicate matters most or all people, especially people who don't check for the possibility, are easily misled by slight changes in volume.
In addition, sometimes people do imagine they hear differences that aren't there, especially if they consciously try too hard to find something different.
Then there is the fact that for people who don't hear, or who's brains don't pick out the little details of, something like very small distortions, it's hard to tell who may be hearing something real, and who isn't.
So, it's a difficult situation right now. And that will probably only change when some new scientifically credible research comes along that further sorts out the variables, and that takes into account people that may be relatively rare in terms of how their brains are organized to recognize certain aspects of sound.
So far, nobody suitably qualified has come along who wants to undertake such a research project, and nobody we know of has volunteered to fund what it would cost. Until then, things are likely to continue along a lot like they have in the past.
I also kind of suspect that at least some people can be trained how to listen to better recognize distortion, but like anything else, I think it would take practice, along with a good enough reproduction system available to practice with.
However, it has been suggested that even if training people to do that was possible, it might be a curse to have it. That could be. After all, sometimes people with perfect pitch really don't like listening to music not tuned to A=440Hz. At least I don't have that problem.
Here is a challenging statement I have come to believe: listening to stereo systems is a learned experience and really independent from the "real thing". Simple hard evidence would be the impact of listening to a given speaker for a while and switching to a different speaker. You will hear the differences and the new speaker will sound wrong even if its more accurate on a very evident objective level.
Once you accept that this whole thing is learned it becomes harder to accept broad claims that "A" is RIGHT and "B" is WRONG. Fundamentally they are both wrong. However, if objective reality is not an attainable goal perhaps a good experience is. Then if your learned experience expects the impact of noise, harmonic distortion, tracing distortion, wow and flutter and other artifacts of reproduced sound the lack of those may give a poorer experience. An analogy would be watching a movie on 35 MM film vs the same originating on 1080P video. Both media have limitations but the video will be clearly lower in artifacts, including the random noise from film grain, the image stability of the video will be much better etc. However the film may give a better experience in the hands of a good director and director of photography. Translating this to audio is not a stretch. A good producer and engineer work with the limitations to give the desired experience. How our home equipment impact this really is up to the individual user and his/her expectations.
Once you accept that this whole thing is learned it becomes harder to accept broad claims that "A" is RIGHT and "B" is WRONG. Fundamentally they are both wrong. However, if objective reality is not an attainable goal perhaps a good experience is. Then if your learned experience expects the impact of noise, harmonic distortion, tracing distortion, wow and flutter and other artifacts of reproduced sound the lack of those may give a poorer experience. An analogy would be watching a movie on 35 MM film vs the same originating on 1080P video. Both media have limitations but the video will be clearly lower in artifacts, including the random noise from film grain, the image stability of the video will be much better etc. However the film may give a better experience in the hands of a good director and director of photography. Translating this to audio is not a stretch. A good producer and engineer work with the limitations to give the desired experience. How our home equipment impact this really is up to the individual user and his/her expectations.
Video especially is going the wrong way. There's even a new word for it which I forgot concerning processing old film to look like yesterday's video shoot. In fact the opposite is now on filmmaker's minds so why are the TV's putting it back???? http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/dv-film-look/how-to-make-digital-video-look-like-film.html
Last edited:
Just look at the fuss over the hobbit being filmed at high frame rate!
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2
That may be a bit over-simplified. I know my NS-10s have no bass and a peak at 1.5 kHz. And those things are always there, my ears and brain never fully compensate. When I hear other speakers, it may be quite apparent that they are less wrong, or more wrong, however the case may be.
Similarly, looking back to hearing recordings of the same tape recording digitized by different A/D converters, it took some practice for me to hear the difference, but once my brain latched onto what was different about the recordings, there was no question as to which sounded more distorted and which sounded less. Of course to do that, my brain had to have some memory of what acoustical instruments sound like in person.
Recently, I went back and listened to some of those A/D recordings again, and at first I was surprised not to hear differences. Then after a few minutes it was like a switch was flipped on and suddenly it was very easy to notice differences again.
It was very a very interesting experience to go from someone who is unaware of what to listen for, to suddenly noticing the details again. Makes it easy to understand how some people can insist there is no audible distortion at all, and others can insist there is quite obvious distortion. It all seems to depend on what some have referred to as brain DSP to extract very small signals and focus attention on them.
Why? After thinking about it a little, I decided at first my brain was picking out the sound of musical instruments, and so that's what I heard. Sort of like hearing speech and automatically understanding what was being said. In the case of hearing the A/D distortion, it was more like a language I learned long ago and mostly forgot, but suddenly my brain remembered how to make sense out of it and pick it out distinctly from the instrument sound recognition.
The recent experience reminded me of something else I had forgotten: when I first started listening to the A/D recordings, I couldn't hear much difference either. But, I had gone through three increasingly expensive A/D converters, all with "good" enough specs, and wasn't satisfied with the sound quality of any. Deciding I had to find some solution, I listened to the A/D recordings many, many times, and it was only after that practice that I started getting better at hearing the differences and found the one's I liked best. So, after purchasing one of the two top contenders, it sounded just fine to me once I got and has always sounded good. It was only long after that I found out Bob Katz rated it as an A+ A/D converter. I guess maybe we have the same tastes in A/D's in that case.
Anyway, for anyone wanting to try to learn to hear A/D differences, the opportunity still exists, (presuming of course one has a good enough D/A and amp for playback. I was using a Lynx-2 sound card at the time and while not as good as a DAC-1, it was good enough to hear the A/D differences). Regarding the remaining opportunity I was thinking of, here is a link: http://store.payloadz.com/details/112337-music-miscellaneous-3d-adcd-a-d-converter-comparison.html
Last edited:
we do have some human listening test input from published researchers
even sonme active here:
even sonme active here:
Bill, I've used DBLTs to design stuff for nearly 2 decades.
While a DBLT series would be used to confirm approval of the final product, an engineer would only use a DBLT to make difficult & subtle decisions.
A true golden pinnae (someone who has been proven reliable in a LOT of DBLTs) can often pick stuff up in seconds so much of the design work could be sighted. But even the best ears in the business are as prejudiced and pig headed as the most raving lunatic Golden Pinnae reviewer. There are ears whose opinion I respect blind that I would never consider sighted (including myself
When you do a lot of DBLTs, you find out all sorts of stuff .. some of which I've pontificated on this forum in various places. eg practically ALL HiFi reviewers are deaf (with a VERY small number of exceptions).
ALL self declared Golden Pinnae are deaf. No exceptions
I could go on but that would further hijack Tom's thread. Most of the tests were of speakers but there were important tests on amps, EVIL digital and other stuff too.
I don't think most people realise how expensive it is to do proper DBLTs. A DBLT is a measurement and your instrument, your listening panel, has an accuracy that has to be checked & calibrated regularly.
But to come back to amps, I posted something something on another thread on what features would result if DBLTs were the MOST important tests conducted on amps. It will be a long time before amp makers & designers are brave enough to do this.
You haven't seen my above mentioned list of features.
They are nothing to do with stuff hand carved from Unobtainium by Virgins.
But the list is shocking to both the Golden Pinnae & Objectivist brigades
Contrary to popular myth, there HAVE been DBLTs on amp 'features' that consistently result in better sound. But these features are too heretical for common consumption ... or even discussion.
But if you want to incorporate stuff that actually results in 'better sound' ...
And no. None of the amp designs on this forum .. or indeed any commercial amp .. incorporate the most important of these features.
JCX, good points. I used to know some professional sound men who claimed they could hear all sorts of things others couldn't, and usually their pride was very much involved. However, their constant self-promotion often helped get them desirable work assignments. Other people who practiced listening carefully, but didn't brag about it, typically didn't impress as many people and didn't as often get called upon for the choicest of jobs.
Anyway, it's quite common for people to have self-narratives and to believe in those narratives as being truthful and accurate. It's something that extends far past listening ability claims.
And of course, there are always a few psychopaths around, maybe around 2% of the population, and perhaps a few more in the music business.
Last edited:
Well guys, I disagree. DBLT's SUCK, as far as I am personally concerned. If they worked (for me) I would use them. My opinions are not specific to myself, but are a CONSENSUS of many others opinions, especially on my own designs. That is why I speak out, most of you are trapped by academics who will tell you that you can't trust yourself or others, except under THEIR DBLT, and I respectively disagree. Heck, if I listened to and believed 'gedlee' I would give up analog audio design. Why should I bother?
I don't think I said anything about DBLT to disagree with. In fact, we might agree there can be problems, especially with the possibility of things like feeling stressed out or distracted by the process. But that doesn't mean any such problems are necessarily insurmountable, although it may seem that way now.
However, once people start arguing about what is or is not audible, it's easy to imagine that if someone can hear something, they should be able to hear it just fine during DBLT. As humans, it's easy for us to have a lot of intuitions about other people like that which seem highly rational and logical when we think about it. But lots of modern psychological and neuroscience research shows we are not nearly as rational or logical as we normally believe, and intuitions that seem quite reliable often turn out to be wrong.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.