Simply a venue where either choice could happen by admission of all participants. No peeking no clue, and then choose.
Nope, just my hobby horse. A decent soundcard and free software can do just about any audio measurement you would ever need.
Hello Scott
What sound card is your first choice for audio measurements.
Arthur
I'm not the best person to ask, I like the Fostex FR2-LE, it works as a portable and data gatherer.
As far as audio amplifiers are aimed at listening of recorded music, they are inevitably evaluated by listeners and listening tests, not only by measurements.
In case we design amplifiers for instrumentation, then they are hardly evaluated by ears
. I believe that Mr. Scott Wurcer understands this difference.
In case we design amplifiers for instrumentation, then they are hardly evaluated by ears
. I believe that Mr. Scott Wurcer understands this difference.
It is a great relief to me that you cannot agree about such a test regime - hopefully it will discourage anyone from attempting it. What will you achieve by a objectivised test of subjective perceptions? The results of such testing will only lead to further confusion by anyone foolish enough to try to design an amplifier based on the outcome.
Any new amplifier of any Value will be designed by one with professional engineering ability AND good taste. Good taste formed by designing, building & evaluating parts and systems, and design topologies for her/himself.
It is perfectly reasonable to listen to a wide range of professionally designed amplifiers and decide that you like none of them. That happened to me, and is the reason why I design my own, to suit my taste. As an *anecdotal* coincidence, LPs played through my audio system achieve a more convincing representation of live music, in the view of (acoustic) musicians who have heard it (compared to the offerings at the 'boutique').
The suggestion that my designs could be improved by some kind of logic-driven multiple-choice component-selection process is perfect nonsense. The only outcome of such a process is science for the sake of science. The Poet Robert Graves, in the Little Memorial address to MIT (1963) warned his audience of following this erroneous path, condemning it as 'Intellectual Perversion'.
Yes it can seem anything depending on your experience and background.
Nevertheless, there are quite accepted and well documented ways to do a controlled test. Those principles are valid for ANY controlled test, and is also sometimes called 'the scientific way'. These methods are as applicable to audio listening tests as to, say, testing two hammers for a specific performance point.
It's the METHOD that leads to reliable, repeatable tests.
But you know that of course.
jan didden
Of course, your personal taste should have priority. And we all know that personal taste or preference is influenced only partly by the objective performance of an amp, and as much or more by appearance, price, reputation, your previous experience, etc. That is not disputed.
Nevertheless, if you tell me that one capacitor sounds better than another, that is something that can be tested without being influenced by taste or reputation of a specific cap. Whether you actually would want to do that or not, is another thing, but it CAN be done.
These are two different things.
jan didden
Last edited:
Hi Jan, I do not dispute that you can do the test if you want to.
The question is - what benefit do you receive? You spent a great deal of time and energy finding out that 100 listeners prefer capacitor 'A' against capacitor 'B'.
If I stoop to the level of logic and ask "if I put capacitor 'A' in my new design, will it sound better?" the answer will still be: "it depends". It depends on what else is in the amplifier, and other things besides. If you change ONE thing in your amp, after your multiple-choice-test, the result is outdated.
All I am saying is that a designer, wishing to build an amplifier to listen to music, would better spend her or his time in developing a sensitivity for what parts sound good, alone, together and refining engineering design skill. Knowledge gained in 'Controlled Circumstances' is only valid in 'Controlled Circumstances', and therefore has very little worth; it is science for the sake of science.
On the other hand, when John Curl writes that Capacitor X is a good-sounding design, it will encourage me to try it for myself. It will get on the list of 'things worth trying' ahead of things that do not have a recommendation from a designer who has actually ACHIEVED something worthwhile in the realm of amplifier design. I will listen myself, and I will trust my own perceptive abilities, as well as my design ability. In the DIY world, to which this forum belongs, each DIYer should do something similar: add as much design skill as you can muster to engineer a good solution, but your own evaluation of the ENJOYMENT it gives is the key. As John says, you have to trust yourself!
Designing your DIY amp based on an assortment of parts/topologies because they have been approved by an artificial assessment process is meaningless and fake.
The question is - what benefit do you receive? You spent a great deal of time and energy finding out that 100 listeners prefer capacitor 'A' against capacitor 'B'.
If I stoop to the level of logic and ask "if I put capacitor 'A' in my new design, will it sound better?" the answer will still be: "it depends". It depends on what else is in the amplifier, and other things besides. If you change ONE thing in your amp, after your multiple-choice-test, the result is outdated.
All I am saying is that a designer, wishing to build an amplifier to listen to music, would better spend her or his time in developing a sensitivity for what parts sound good, alone, together and refining engineering design skill. Knowledge gained in 'Controlled Circumstances' is only valid in 'Controlled Circumstances', and therefore has very little worth; it is science for the sake of science.
On the other hand, when John Curl writes that Capacitor X is a good-sounding design, it will encourage me to try it for myself. It will get on the list of 'things worth trying' ahead of things that do not have a recommendation from a designer who has actually ACHIEVED something worthwhile in the realm of amplifier design. I will listen myself, and I will trust my own perceptive abilities, as well as my design ability. In the DIY world, to which this forum belongs, each DIYer should do something similar: add as much design skill as you can muster to engineer a good solution, but your own evaluation of the ENJOYMENT it gives is the key. As John says, you have to trust yourself!
Designing your DIY amp based on an assortment of parts/topologies because they have been approved by an artificial assessment process is meaningless and fake.
Well, at least you'd know that the two caps actually sound different when people use their ears (as opposed to their eyes and preconceptions). That's more than John or anyone else has ever done. Once you establish that there IS a difference, you know that you're not wasting your efforts fixing something that isn't actually a problem.
You don't need 100 listeners, just one.
That is very subjective !
Some on the forums have said I was deluded to even suggest that different amplifier topologies ran through the same output stage could possibly have a different sound , or that a lateral OPS could sound different than a BJT one.
So , to suggest that a capacitor or component choice could affect fidelity would bring forth accusations of " golden ear brigade"(GEB) or just plain ol' insanity.
OS
@ John: ... and what if John says: cap X is the best, and someone else says: cap Y is the best? Who do you believe? Only based on reputation?
Of course, you can try yourself and decide, but then we're back to personal preference, taste etc which as we know has only limited correspondence to actual sound produced.
As said, your preference & taste is your business and nobody elses, but trying to find out if, say, cap X *actually* produces sound differences from cap Y, other things being equal, is a different process and that is useful in its own right, indeed is the basis of ALL technological progress.
jan didden
Actually, the method you describe has been part of my design process, without the formality. I take a single witness, whose musical and perceptive judgement I trust, and compare capacitors. She only vaguely knows what a capacitor is, so even if she ever saw the cap, I do not believe it would alter the outcome. But she is a good witness, because she is not perturbed by the circumstances of 'Testing', which I expect many listeners would be - undermining the chance of getting useful output from the tests.
However, the time and date were not recorded, not the temperature, nor the composition of the rest of the equipment; there were no supervisors present accredited by our UK National Physical Laboratory. Therefore, many readers will not be interested in this 'anecdotal evidence', but I don't expect anyone to give credibility to what I pronounce, until they have listened to audio equipment designed by me. Only if what I have designed gives one more enjoyment, or a closer feel for the music, will anything that I believe be meaningful. I may find excruciating some faults which you don't hear, and vice versa. I know this to be possible, because of my reaction to a lot of commercial amplifiers.
I support the idea that one should get some outside opinion, from witnesses whose reference is non-electric music. But attempts to anonymise a listening test, or control it by logic and formal conditions, will rob the outcome of any worth - the results are valid only for the conditions of the test, and the taste of the listener.
Jan, this is the root of where we differ. I believe you are saying that a test can be conceived where 2 capacitors can be compared, and an ABSOLUTE result delivered.
I believe that this is impossible. Your results will be RELATIVE to the other equipment used, the circuit conditions around the capacitor and all of the environmental conditions of the test. And that's before we consider the subjectivity of the witness.
I am not convinced that technological progress has done much for audio, either. Why, even SY employs TUBES in his amplifiers - as I do. Techno-anachronism!
As you've heard about a million times, those aren't the issues with your "tests." But you're certainly free to have fun doing things that you enjoy doing- just don't pretend that you're accomplishing anything real, other than really having fun (not that there's anything wrong with that!).
If DIY audio is not about having fun, and creating something that gives a daily pleasure, what is it? And if you can gain a **closer** look at some of the magnificent music available on records, by means of better audio equipment - which I have certainly achieved - I think that is very real.
Anyway, it would only be fair to tell us about your achievements in the way of 'accomplishing anything real' Otherwise I may struggle to know where I am falling short.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.