Not really, more like expected.
Like someone wise said - you can lie to all of the people some of the time, you can lie to some of the people all of the time, but you can't lie to all of the people all of the time. No matter what anyone claims, in the end, somebody like you or me will ask THE question: where's your product to back up your claims?
In the end, it's the product that counts. If one used a lot of BS initially, then chances are he has been covering for a mediocre product. It will be seen as such and they won't last long.
Over the last say 30 years, we've had a few demonstrations of that in live video. Like famous names trying to trade on old fame - a good example is Japan's Alps, who purchased Luxman Corp., and then tried launching a separate line with their own name all over it. They didn't last long. To add insult to injury, they failed with a cassette deck, even if they were highly regarded for just that in car audio. Learnt their lesson that car audio and home audio are two very different beasts.
Hype is a double edged sword. If it bounces off your target, it will recoil and cut you. That's what happened to these people, I think.
So when you start inventing entire test procedures, most buffs will think it's because you want to highlight something you may have that others don't. Once they discover that this is not the case, you're history.
Last edited:
Remember that a null result on an ABX test does NOT prove that there is no difference. It just demonstrates that there is no statistically significant result in THAT particular test. It says nothing about whether there IS a difference.
Let me provide an example.
- LED lights which flicker and LED lights which don't, zero flicker.
You can not visually ABX the difference, since you can not --see-- any difference.
However, you can still --feel-- the difference, since it is interacting with you subliminally.
Whether you believe this statement to be true or not, how would one evidence it?
This would be an excellent target for an ABX demo. You randomly switch on the flicker or non-flicker-LED, and ask 'viewers' to record on a sheet what they think it is, flicker or non-flicker.
Look at the results - if there is a statistically significant 'good answers' you may conclude that people can reliably differentiate between flicker and non-flicker. If not, then not. Easy.
Of course the usual conditions apply, like neither the viewers nor the switcher should know what is what. Better yet, a computerized switcher that also has as a random sequence the possibility of two flickers or two non-flickers (or even more!) in a row. Also, enough viewers, enough trials, bla bla..
Should be done, complete with a written report, in an evening.
Eyes only.
jan
Let me correct you on several points, John.
1 - nobody forces you on a ABX test. It's just that since you keep on bragging 'I trust my ears', all people are asking for is a controlled ears-only test. Not unreasonable.
2 - Why do you think you cannot pass an ABX (or other controlled test)? Many people clearly hear differences in a controlled test, so why the fear? Aren't you interested in what you can REALLY hear with ears only?
3 - Nobody 'calls' you anything, but people ask that you put your money where your mouth is - again, not unreasonable.
4 - IT agreed to this BAS test 30 years ago and failed. So? That's a datum point, NOT a personal defeat of IT in my book. That test has been published on the 'net and is still there, yes, just as your letters of 30 years ago that have been rebutted are still there. That's life in the 21st century.
5 - That BAS test was NOT failed by two others present. One could here a difference in background noise in the two situations, and scored 100%. The other could even here the difference in switching noise of a relay between going from on to off and reverse, also scored 100% (iirc that test was done later). Just because IT's ears were not up to it, doesn't make the test any less valid.
I think I'll stop here.
Jan
Well, then if all audio equipment sounds the same, what are all these guys doing here anyway, why bother playing around with audio at all? The results would always be the same. Why would you care?
The answer is, of course, that there ARE audible differences in audio equipment. Nelson Pass says he spends lots of time in design tuning up his products for a certain sound, is he wasting his time? He doesn't think so. SY designs tube audio, why would he bother? I can make something that measures much better for a few bucks with some op amps and won't heat up. Why would he bother, nostalgia?
There are various degrees of refinement in all that we do, every engineer knows that. The good ones care.
Of course there are audible differences between equipment. Nobody denied that! We just would like to separate the genuine cases where there is a sound-only difference from the cases where the eventual sound differences have been mixed up with all the other sensory inputs we are bombarded with.
Hence the controlled ears-only testing. Makes sense?
Edit: Why we want that? Because if we have a genuine ears-only difference, we have something to sink our design teeth in and proceed to maker Better Equipment! Beats running around in circles big time!
Jan
Last edited:
Jan, I did ABX tests starting 35 years ago. I KNOW what I cannot detect in an ABX test.
The first ABX test was given to me in 1976 for a paper on TIM. When asked, I said that BOTH switch positions sounded lousy, and of course, I nulled the test.
Then, in 1978, I borrowed an ABX switchbox, then called the Spiegel box.
I took it home and compared my old Dyna PAS3X with my Levinson JC-2, just the line amps. I could NOT detect any differences, but my 'reviewer' girlfriend said that she didn't like the sound of the box itself. SO, I checked out the box and found that it was compromised in several ways.
Then, a year or so later, I did an ABX test with Richard Marsh, my girlfriend, and Peter Moncrief and some of our results wound up in TAA. Both Peter and my girlfriend did somewhat better than Richard or me. Now, why should I bother when it is so hard to hear differences in that test situation? Yet, if I trust my own judgement, or that of my colleagues, subjectively, we can make really good sounding equipment, that is very difficult to separate out, measurement wise from relatively lousy sounding equipment. So when in doubt, I trust my ears.
The first ABX test was given to me in 1976 for a paper on TIM. When asked, I said that BOTH switch positions sounded lousy, and of course, I nulled the test.
Then, in 1978, I borrowed an ABX switchbox, then called the Spiegel box.
I took it home and compared my old Dyna PAS3X with my Levinson JC-2, just the line amps. I could NOT detect any differences, but my 'reviewer' girlfriend said that she didn't like the sound of the box itself. SO, I checked out the box and found that it was compromised in several ways.
Then, a year or so later, I did an ABX test with Richard Marsh, my girlfriend, and Peter Moncrief and some of our results wound up in TAA. Both Peter and my girlfriend did somewhat better than Richard or me. Now, why should I bother when it is so hard to hear differences in that test situation? Yet, if I trust my own judgement, or that of my colleagues, subjectively, we can make really good sounding equipment, that is very difficult to separate out, measurement wise from relatively lousy sounding equipment. So when in doubt, I trust my ears.
OK, some of my other 'adventures' with ABX testing: One time we had a test for cable differences at UCB, that was run by an audio guy who just hated the very thought that there were differences.
Once the test started running, everybody picked from the audience could hear the difference, SO they stopped the test before they would have to report any significant results. Objective? I think not.
Once the test started running, everybody picked from the audience could hear the difference, SO they stopped the test before they would have to report any significant results. Objective? I think not.
Jan, I think "bragging" is a wrong word, even if I'm fairly certain your untention was not to insult.
John insists on his hearing as being cruical for him.
So do I. Frankly, whatever can be made of horse manure for all I care, if it sounds good to me, I will like it. It can be made by a famous name, or by a totally anonymous author, doesn't mean thing to me, I am not in this hobby to impress anyone or have someone love my system, but because I like to set aside time, get into a deep armchair and just listen to the music. For my own pleasure, that is my only luxury in life and I neither need nor want more.
So far, so good. The dangerous part is when somebody starts to assume that his own hearing is the yardstick by which all others must be measured. Whoever that might be, he's in trouble from all sides.
On the other hand, anyone who has ever achieved any wider public recognition will know that once that happens, there will invariably be detractors for reasons which have nothing to do anything but public recognition. Not at all unlike the old Wild West, where famous gunslingers first shot 2 or 3 men because of quarrels, but later on had to shoot another 30 who wnated to make a name for themselves by shooting him.
Then there are those once-friends-now-enemies. There are ALWAYS people like that, and they can be caustic because they have been around you and know you better than most.
And so forth.
I agree John sometimes phrases things in a way which could easily be misunderstood, misconstrued and sometimes inconclusive as such. This is not uncommon among engineers of all types, to occasionally forget that not everyone in the audience has their grasp of the matter at hand. So they put it erroniously assuming you will get it right, but because I don't know what they know, I am unable to get it right. Bad assumption.
But if so, wouldn't asking for clarification be preferable to attacks? And we have seen posts which were nothing but attacks, some of them losing the case for the man asking them because of the way he asked.
Only in math do two minuses make a plus; in real life, two minuses often produce many more much worse minuses.
To me, the only reference point I really care about and hinge my entire opinion on is my own hearing, how that something sounds to me. I do so not because I think I hear better, or more, or both than other people, but because I am the one who will have to live with that device, day in, day out.
John insists on his hearing as being cruical for him.
So do I. Frankly, whatever can be made of horse manure for all I care, if it sounds good to me, I will like it. It can be made by a famous name, or by a totally anonymous author, doesn't mean thing to me, I am not in this hobby to impress anyone or have someone love my system, but because I like to set aside time, get into a deep armchair and just listen to the music. For my own pleasure, that is my only luxury in life and I neither need nor want more.
So far, so good. The dangerous part is when somebody starts to assume that his own hearing is the yardstick by which all others must be measured. Whoever that might be, he's in trouble from all sides.
On the other hand, anyone who has ever achieved any wider public recognition will know that once that happens, there will invariably be detractors for reasons which have nothing to do anything but public recognition. Not at all unlike the old Wild West, where famous gunslingers first shot 2 or 3 men because of quarrels, but later on had to shoot another 30 who wnated to make a name for themselves by shooting him.
Then there are those once-friends-now-enemies. There are ALWAYS people like that, and they can be caustic because they have been around you and know you better than most.
And so forth.
I agree John sometimes phrases things in a way which could easily be misunderstood, misconstrued and sometimes inconclusive as such. This is not uncommon among engineers of all types, to occasionally forget that not everyone in the audience has their grasp of the matter at hand. So they put it erroniously assuming you will get it right, but because I don't know what they know, I am unable to get it right. Bad assumption.
But if so, wouldn't asking for clarification be preferable to attacks? And we have seen posts which were nothing but attacks, some of them losing the case for the man asking them because of the way he asked.
Only in math do two minuses make a plus; in real life, two minuses often produce many more much worse minuses.
To me, the only reference point I really care about and hinge my entire opinion on is my own hearing, how that something sounds to me. I do so not because I think I hear better, or more, or both than other people, but because I am the one who will have to live with that device, day in, day out.
Yes I agree the relay sound was a flaw in the test. The background noise was a genuine difference caused by the insertion of the AD-DA chain. So if you had good enough ears (like Stanley Lipshitz I think it was) you could score 100%.
Jan
There are two things here: 1) the intellectual curiosity to WANT TO KNOW what you can hear, and 2) the way to go about.
With all your experience with gold plated, 10 pound weight, silver/rubidium, whatever, switches, why don't you just build your own switch box? A Blowtorch switch with one more pole would be ideal! Put us all to shame!
jan
I'll just address one points, my gf is coming over so I have to get back to real life 
Many people have tried to ask JC for explanations or pull him into a meaningful discussion, but I have only seen avoidance and refusal. So I think most have given up on this, although it would be VERY much better!
Jan
Many people have tried to ask JC for explanations or pull him into a meaningful discussion, but I have only seen avoidance and refusal. So I think most have given up on this, although it would be VERY much better!
Jan
That IS a good question, John.
Also, I think it would be darn useful for you too. Think of it this way - at some point, what you make will become invisible (inaudible) as such, so any further differeneces which may exist will come either form your better rendition which shows up the flaws in the source material other pass by, or from very possible flaws in the switch box which can no longer cope.
So, if you were to dedicate some of your time to an "inaudible" switch box, you would simply be raising the standard, which is I believe beneficial to your regular work as well, since it will let your own work do its thing as it can without hinderance from a darn box.
Think about it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.