Jacco, you just made it 50.0001%. And with this post, 50.0002%.
Sorry John, couldn't resist....
jan
Yes we do, I thought the crux of these discussions was where there was no (meaningful) measurable difference. If we are back at annecdotal comments about resistors seperated into -140dB vs -120dB distortion bins, the connection has not been proven.
If we are going to practice relativism, why aren't my experiences (no sonic difference between many brands of film resistors) on equal ground.
Last edited:
The interesting observation is that people who refuse any form of controlled listening are implying that, in contrast to what they say, they DO NOT trust their ears.
I DO trust my ears - I am willing to shut off all other external influences and just listen with only my ears. I DO NOT need to know the color of the amp, the price of the speaker, the reputation of the CD player. I only want the sound to be the arbiter - and thats why we need controlled listening.
"I don't need controlled listening because I trust my ears" must be the biggest bs statement in audio.
jan
Just a moment - its an 'observation' then its an implicaton? How can one observe an implication? Implicatons are inferred through a process of reasoning based on assumptions are they not? So how about you make your assumptions open to cross examination here?
Scott,
They are on equal ground.
There is just a minor sticking point.
Your experience shows no difference, which is fine.
But as it did not reliably cover all brands and constructions of resistors the negative outcome cannot be generalised, disregardless of any other issues, such as experimental design etc.
Incidentally neither can individual positive outcomes of tests, e.g. old Holco "sound good" (new ones no longer BTW) be construed to provide proof that all resistors sound somehow different or even that one particular brand or type of resistor is reliably superior to others.
In fact, there is no scope for generalisation in these tests as the statistics are simply to marginal to conclude anything with any degree of confidence that is beyond taking a leak in a very dark place with srong gusty and varying direction wind.
BTW, the old Holco's had crucial differences in construction to "generic film resistors" which where not duplicated in other brands of very expensive, tight tolerance Metal Film Resistors (which sounded just like the cheapest meatl film resistors). In the process of ROHS compliance etc. Holco changed their construction to match their competitors and lo and behold, current Holco indeed show no appreciable difference (to my ears and testing) over their competitors and you might as well buy the cheapest chinese made MF resistor.
I previously mentioned the blind (and "ultra everything blind") test we did with comparably minor power-supply changes.
We did a similar test with SMD Film resistors and they confirm your impression.
Most generic metal film resistors are equally BAD. It is perfectly possible to compare several dozens of Brands for SMD film resistor and not find an appreciable audible (or measurable!) difference.
What I am quite certain you did not do, however, was to test resistors that are mechanically compatible, but use alternate construction/design/materials.
We did. And found material differences in testing, with strong preferences compared to generic film types, in BLIND testing (single blind preference test).
I cannot tell you how displeased I was by the tests outcome, even though I had staked my reputation in the company on "my magic resistor" (note, tongue firmly in cheek for the magic), because they where only available in truely massive MOQ per value (100KU - seemed we had to do a new production run for each and every value) and we somehow had to find the money to pay for this MOQ on something like 50 Values, a few month after the economy of the western world had been flushed down the toilet, so cash was all but plenty or easy...
I would have been pleased as punch had the outcome produced a "no difference" or a "no difference worth having" outcome...
BTW, in a certain specific part of an MC input stage the difference in noise between a "generic film resistor" and my "magic resistor" came up to around 10dB at LF, starting below 1KHz. The resistor formed the tail of a folded cascode BTW, with a 1:1000 ratio between cascode impedance and resistor value...
This is the only situation are where I was able to MEASURE a reliable difference between "generic" and "magic" resistors, using AP2 or EMU1616m.
Ciao T
They are on equal ground.
There is just a minor sticking point.
Your experience shows no difference, which is fine.
But as it did not reliably cover all brands and constructions of resistors the negative outcome cannot be generalised, disregardless of any other issues, such as experimental design etc.
Incidentally neither can individual positive outcomes of tests, e.g. old Holco "sound good" (new ones no longer BTW) be construed to provide proof that all resistors sound somehow different or even that one particular brand or type of resistor is reliably superior to others.
In fact, there is no scope for generalisation in these tests as the statistics are simply to marginal to conclude anything with any degree of confidence that is beyond taking a leak in a very dark place with srong gusty and varying direction wind.
BTW, the old Holco's had crucial differences in construction to "generic film resistors" which where not duplicated in other brands of very expensive, tight tolerance Metal Film Resistors (which sounded just like the cheapest meatl film resistors). In the process of ROHS compliance etc. Holco changed their construction to match their competitors and lo and behold, current Holco indeed show no appreciable difference (to my ears and testing) over their competitors and you might as well buy the cheapest chinese made MF resistor.
I previously mentioned the blind (and "ultra everything blind") test we did with comparably minor power-supply changes.
We did a similar test with SMD Film resistors and they confirm your impression.
Most generic metal film resistors are equally BAD. It is perfectly possible to compare several dozens of Brands for SMD film resistor and not find an appreciable audible (or measurable!) difference.
What I am quite certain you did not do, however, was to test resistors that are mechanically compatible, but use alternate construction/design/materials.
We did. And found material differences in testing, with strong preferences compared to generic film types, in BLIND testing (single blind preference test).
I cannot tell you how displeased I was by the tests outcome, even though I had staked my reputation in the company on "my magic resistor" (note, tongue firmly in cheek for the magic), because they where only available in truely massive MOQ per value (100KU - seemed we had to do a new production run for each and every value) and we somehow had to find the money to pay for this MOQ on something like 50 Values, a few month after the economy of the western world had been flushed down the toilet, so cash was all but plenty or easy...
I would have been pleased as punch had the outcome produced a "no difference" or a "no difference worth having" outcome...
BTW, in a certain specific part of an MC input stage the difference in noise between a "generic film resistor" and my "magic resistor" came up to around 10dB at LF, starting below 1KHz. The resistor formed the tail of a folded cascode BTW, with a 1:1000 ratio between cascode impedance and resistor value...
This is the only situation are where I was able to MEASURE a reliable difference between "generic" and "magic" resistors, using AP2 or EMU1616m.
Ciao T
Hi Jan,
Now, who please refuses ANY form of controlled listening tests, as opposed to having specific or general objections to specific kind of tests.
For example, personally I object to tests that have more than 4-5 presentation in a row. And to ones in unfamilar settings etc. My ability to be bothered about sound simply evaporates. So if you for require me to produce 16 positives in 20 trials in a row, in an unfamiliar setting, for known audible differences, forget it.
Now four times 4 positives in 5 trials for know audible differences I find not difficult, with decent intervals between trials and in a context I am familiar with, as well as with the fundamental protocol under my control.
I also personally object to tests being called "controlled" because they control a single variable, while omitting both positive and negative controls and are open to many criticisms of method and statistics. Such tests at best should be called "poorly controlled" and a s a result any data derived from such tests has to probably be considered irrelevant or unacceptable, because of the precise lack of decent controls.
So, who actually makes these statements? Who (names please) actually claimed they do not need controlled tests because they trust their ears (as opposed to objecting to specific methods etc.)?
For now I somehow seem to have a major smell of staw in my nose...
Ciao T
Now, who please refuses ANY form of controlled listening tests, as opposed to having specific or general objections to specific kind of tests.
For example, personally I object to tests that have more than 4-5 presentation in a row. And to ones in unfamilar settings etc. My ability to be bothered about sound simply evaporates. So if you for require me to produce 16 positives in 20 trials in a row, in an unfamiliar setting, for known audible differences, forget it.
Now four times 4 positives in 5 trials for know audible differences I find not difficult, with decent intervals between trials and in a context I am familiar with, as well as with the fundamental protocol under my control.
I also personally object to tests being called "controlled" because they control a single variable, while omitting both positive and negative controls and are open to many criticisms of method and statistics. Such tests at best should be called "poorly controlled" and a s a result any data derived from such tests has to probably be considered irrelevant or unacceptable, because of the precise lack of decent controls.
So, who actually makes these statements? Who (names please) actually claimed they do not need controlled tests because they trust their ears (as opposed to objecting to specific methods etc.)?
For now I somehow seem to have a major smell of staw in my nose...
Ciao T
I'll raise my hand here, with a couple of qualifications.
I choose not to take part in such tests (rather than 'refuse' which sounds like there's some forceful determination not to take part). I don't take part because I see no benefit to myself in discovering whether having a more controlled listening environment than normal can make my placebo effect (if placebo there indeed be) disappear, or not. Hence taking part has no advantage from my side to offset the time required.
Put very bluntly, tests are boring.
Hi,
And another fact.
They are fond of calling those who they disagree with Snakeoil Merchants and other unflattering epithets, meaning they are "fair game" for a bit of the same, with due respect.
Do we need to go on?
I find ABX-something more pointed, pithy and funnier.
If in doubt I always go with funny...
Ciao T
The thing that I personally find so funny, is that if we got to the limits of scientific methodology as tied to the limits of our current level of intellectual reach, and specifically... scientific reach... we find that the only thing we truly know, is that there are no facts. That no facts exist.
In that one final point of understanding, all data points are subject to change and investigation. All.
That nothing is set in stone. Nothing.
And the studies on phenomena that reach the limit, the wave particle real/unreal 'solid/fluid-flowing' limit..that even people actually do indeed impact the formation of 'reality'. That consciousness and 'reality' are intertwined in a way that the consensus consideration of 'scientific methodology' will have a hard time accepting.
For that methodology, due to the linear mindscape it works within (ego-hard reality...looking out --from itself), that methodology, as a formative and moving expression, is not designed to understand that the fundamental limits of reality as a methodology of research in science...that those limits are contained within consciousness as an expression. Which is why it rejects all aspects of 'other' research that so clearly refutes it's standpoint of expression.
Scientific methodology, as it stands, gets away with this farce, for the reasons stated, as other experiments have shown. That if null results are expected due to inherent bias in the individuals involved in the given experiment that touches those formative limits of 'reality', that the given bias deeply affects the results, in a repeatable fashion, regarding accuracy of that specific aspect of results.
It is an emergent point of clarity that is ultra critical to understand, regarding the limits of science and any attempts to finally label and shape the limits of functional reality, in any way, shape, or form.
And this point... truly makes a mess out of the current 'mainstream' presentation of science.
That is the current 'trip point' that the current leading edge of thinking in science - that humankind is standing on the threshold of. Yet few realize it.
Not realized due to some (people)...not investigating, most... from refusing it in a categorical manner and mindset.
The matter is shown to be one that is mostly of a psychological nature, not one of logic or science.
As a historical matter, regarding looking at the record... to see if this has happened before in humanity's development of reach and expression, this has been the same sticking point in 100% of all cases of human evolution, as individuals, or a group. The limit, the record shows, in all cases... is always the man and the limits within.
Last edited:
Hi,
I completely agree.
However, they can be made a lot less boring and all and while for me personally, in my home "anything goes", when it comes to significant cash commitment or cost increases for example, one would act in violation of fiduciary duties to share holders to do so without evidence.
So just like in school, we may not like the tests, but usually it is hard to skyve off all of them and still get a "pass"... ;-)
Ciao T
I'll raise my hand here, with a couple of qualifications.
...
Put very bluntly, tests are boring.
I completely agree.
However, they can be made a lot less boring and all and while for me personally, in my home "anything goes", when it comes to significant cash commitment or cost increases for example, one would act in violation of fiduciary duties to share holders to do so without evidence.
So just like in school, we may not like the tests, but usually it is hard to skyve off all of them and still get a "pass"... ;-)
Ciao T
Ah, we clearly differ in philosophy
What we hear most certainly is evidence, even if its likely that's under conditions of brain cross-coupling from 'knowing' to 'hearing'.
Thorsten, first I am a little confused. Was it the 'Old Holco' your favorite resistor, until they changed the process? I will comment further, once I get that understood.
As far as listening tests are concerned. I don't like them. I don't even do them, for the most part, and have not done so, on any regular basis for the last 20 years. Yet I am successful in making quality audio designs, one after another.
Now, this was not always true, and it is not that I don't hear differences, but a nuanced difference, such as between two 1% resistors, would be beyond me at 70 years old. When I was 25, maybe then.
Now, why don't I do ABX or equivalent double blind tests that I am sometimes challenged to do. I KNOW, in advance, that I would fail them, and get a null, like just about everyone else. So I don't do them, it would be a waste of time.
However, what would an ABX test tell me? Nothing except that there is something wrong with the ABX test itself.
Now, you might ask, what is the difference between my newer and older designs, sonically? Is there any real difference? Well, I think so, but it is from continuous listening that I develop an opinion of the 'signature' of the design, and usually it gets a little annoying to listen to that 'signature' once I recognize it. I think this also happens with loudspeaker designers who become aware of a problem with their speaker, and after fixing it in newer products, they are acutely aware of the 'problem' in a colleague's earlier version of their speaker, perhaps more than the normal user.
In any case, these are the preamps I have designed, that I have access to.
Levinson JC-2 (1974)
Early prototype: 1980
Dennesen JC-80
Vendetta prototype
Parasound PLD 1100
Parasound PLD 1500
Parasound PLD 2000
Passive P&G slider pro pot
Passive Spectral wirewound 10 turn pot
CTC Blowtorch
Now, except for the CTC Blowtorch, what would I use, instead? I would use the Passive wirewound 10 turn pot. It is cleaner than any other approach, and it is what I used until I started using the CTC Blowtorch. Why this is so is what I try to explain here.
As far as listening tests are concerned. I don't like them. I don't even do them, for the most part, and have not done so, on any regular basis for the last 20 years. Yet I am successful in making quality audio designs, one after another.
Now, this was not always true, and it is not that I don't hear differences, but a nuanced difference, such as between two 1% resistors, would be beyond me at 70 years old. When I was 25, maybe then.
Now, why don't I do ABX or equivalent double blind tests that I am sometimes challenged to do. I KNOW, in advance, that I would fail them, and get a null, like just about everyone else. So I don't do them, it would be a waste of time.
However, what would an ABX test tell me? Nothing except that there is something wrong with the ABX test itself.
Now, you might ask, what is the difference between my newer and older designs, sonically? Is there any real difference? Well, I think so, but it is from continuous listening that I develop an opinion of the 'signature' of the design, and usually it gets a little annoying to listen to that 'signature' once I recognize it. I think this also happens with loudspeaker designers who become aware of a problem with their speaker, and after fixing it in newer products, they are acutely aware of the 'problem' in a colleague's earlier version of their speaker, perhaps more than the normal user.
In any case, these are the preamps I have designed, that I have access to.
Levinson JC-2 (1974)
Early prototype: 1980
Dennesen JC-80
Vendetta prototype
Parasound PLD 1100
Parasound PLD 1500
Parasound PLD 2000
Passive P&G slider pro pot
Passive Spectral wirewound 10 turn pot
CTC Blowtorch
Now, except for the CTC Blowtorch, what would I use, instead? I would use the Passive wirewound 10 turn pot. It is cleaner than any other approach, and it is what I used until I started using the CTC Blowtorch. Why this is so is what I try to explain here.
Last edited:
Hi,
I do not think we differ far, but we are in different situations.
What you and I accept as evidence differs from what others do.
But for example what AMR's shareholders accept as evidence differs from what the ABX-Something bunch of scientific criminals wants, if only because we wised them up to the scam being perpetrated by the ABX-Something crowd, but it also differs from what I personally accept...
My personal failing in all this, I am actually usually too traditional engineering conservative and often find that where I predict and expect small or insignificant differences, our listening tests often show quite material ones. So AMR usually now dislikes taking my word that "two resistors should be equivalent"... Kind of almost the opposite problem John has at Parasound.
It is amazing that with all these decades of contrary experience and my background I am still caught in the overly conservative engineering I learned at Uni, I guess it goes deep (and I can only imagine how it may impact less liberal and fun-loving personalities than my one)...
Ciao T
Ah, we clearly differ in philosophy
I do not think we differ far, but we are in different situations.
What you and I accept as evidence differs from what others do.
But for example what AMR's shareholders accept as evidence differs from what the ABX-Something bunch of scientific criminals wants, if only because we wised them up to the scam being perpetrated by the ABX-Something crowd, but it also differs from what I personally accept...
My personal failing in all this, I am actually usually too traditional engineering conservative and often find that where I predict and expect small or insignificant differences, our listening tests often show quite material ones. So AMR usually now dislikes taking my word that "two resistors should be equivalent"... Kind of almost the opposite problem John has at Parasound.
It is amazing that with all these decades of contrary experience and my background I am still caught in the overly conservative engineering I learned at Uni, I guess it goes deep (and I can only imagine how it may impact less liberal and fun-loving personalities than my one)...
Ciao T
It then comes down to your ideas on execution and parts, then your internal wiring expression and development of your hearing mechanism. Development and expression within your given physical and psychological limits.
The brain is plastic, it can learn, it can learn to discern more finely than the average person, or rather, that with effort, most can refine their hearing to a point of being capable of discerning more - more than when they started working on said development of their hearing capacity.
This is the source of 'golden eared' people, whether they be deluded or otherwise. We each express and learn differently, so there is no reason one golden eared person will prefer 'best potential reproduction' sonic aspects over what they think, or have learned... is better.
Thus, not all hearing, personal development of hearing, or the direction it is developed in..is the same. All have slight differences. The data shapes the psychology and thus the physical and mental development,and the psychology and the physical and mental development shape the directions and thus the results. One is tied to the other in a way where a full separation is impossible, either ideologically or in the idea of scientific methodology.
The problem is heightened when one considers the development and expression of logic and thought within the human mind.
What one finds, when one looks into the matter... what is found, is that that all thoughts are shaped by the primitive hindbrain, before any 'internal voice' can shape them into the mind as the 'voice in the head'.
Ultimately... one has no logic or internally expressed thought, or 'shape of being'... that is free of the body's interference via this basic hindbrain 'shaping filter' of human reality expression.
Taking this on, as a point of thought, in all further expression, intake, and contemplation, this helps one come to an understanding of where that 'ultimate itch that one cannot scratch', is really coming from.
Last edited:
Scott,
We really don't see things the same. You just set up a strawman to knock down and the others are already jumpy.
There are lots of things that in practice were ignored until measurements showed what was going on and then were heard regularly.
The best example is EQUALIZATION! Boner used to do swept measurements and then build RLC filters by hand to flatten the curve. Once folks heard the difference others got into the act. That lead to the development of the 1/3 rd octave equalizer using rotary pots for the control and the first 'scope based analyzer. Now the issue was is there a difference between custom built and 1/3 rd octave?
Parametric equalizers came a bit later. (FYI I bought and installed close to 5% of all the parametric equalizers first used to tune large space sound systems.) ((And 2% of all of the first audio delays!))
Now another example is when TEF systems showed misalignments in component loudspeaker systems that was something quite clear that once you knew the acoustic signature you didn't need the instrument to point out the error.
There are lots of similar issues.
Now if you want to pick on resistors, there actually are a lot of folks who can pick out carbon composition resistors at critical circuit paths compared to metal film. Some prefer the carbon comp! That was certainly reported anecdotally. Although you may remember when carbon film resistors first came out there was some folks who did not believe the much lower cost parts could be superior in any way.
It may be hard to believe tales of perception of differences at -140db. But if T wants to claim he can hear the difference between metal film resistors, I won't call him a liar. I am perfectly contented from what he presents to this thread, when needed to call him a blowhard, egotist, arrogant, or even unkind.
But when anyone tells me what they can or cannot hear, I see no reason to doubt their perceptions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.