My way of listening has little to do with 'peeking' or whatever insulting term is used. We often do it by directly comparing two similar units, and choosing the one that sounds best.
This can be done blindfolded, if necessary, but this really works.
It is almost only ABX testing, with marginal switching (of course, good enough for the engineers) and usually adding EQ on the DEVICE UNDER TEST rather than the reference device that doesn't work. A good example was done by Dr. Lipshitz et al in the late '70's in comparing a Walt Jung phono stage to a standard phono preamp.
From the get-go the Jung unit had the most accurate RIAA, BUT they put a Dyna Equalizer in series with it, to match it with their standard preamp. Does this make scientific sense?
Or what about loading a Shure cartridge with 25K ohms. Perhaps a frequency response problem?
They did these things because they WANTED the two phono stages to sound the same, not for any other reason.
This can be done blindfolded, if necessary, but this really works.
It is almost only ABX testing, with marginal switching (of course, good enough for the engineers) and usually adding EQ on the DEVICE UNDER TEST rather than the reference device that doesn't work. A good example was done by Dr. Lipshitz et al in the late '70's in comparing a Walt Jung phono stage to a standard phono preamp.
From the get-go the Jung unit had the most accurate RIAA, BUT they put a Dyna Equalizer in series with it, to match it with their standard preamp. Does this make scientific sense?
Or what about loading a Shure cartridge with 25K ohms. Perhaps a frequency response problem?
They did these things because they WANTED the two phono stages to sound the same, not for any other reason.
Last edited:
Finding out the truth about things is quite joyful for the intellectually curious and truly open-minded (that is, people who go by evidence and, when presented with good evidence that contradicts what they think is correct, are eager to adopt this new understanding). That's what drives many people to become scientists and to put their ideas to the test.
What is meant by a sighted test is: You know what is being tested.
If you have read the wiki article, you know that this influences perception. And its the reason why blind testing (not knowing what is being tested) is used by knowledgeable people.
Last edited:
Worked extensively on communication equipment and noise cancelling stuff...the listening is analytical not art...including some very interesting listening tests...
Sorry if I seem rather joyless (lol) but as said in audio reproduction I still think the term 'art' is misused, it is used more often to give the illusion of some guru designing by ear only, like some craftsman making an instrument and creating its tone and sound, in audio the sound has already been created by the artists, our job/hobby is to create systems to replay this art with the ultimate fidelity and minimum added noise etc.
Especially low THD.....
lmao.
So, you don't need an ABX test then. All you need to do is correctly identify a component when you don't know which one is playing, using your memory as X.
An even more difficult proposition, but one that I'd love to see done.
Once.
Hi,
In a similar vein, I try to work from memories of what a real iive instrument sounds like.
I do get your point though. (Which I think is once again deliberately misread...)
Best,
In a similar vein, I try to work from memories of what a real iive instrument sounds like.
I do get your point though. (Which I think is once again deliberately misread...)
Best,
I try to work from memories of what a real iive instrument sounds like.
I do get your point though. (Which I think is once again deliberately misread...)
Best,
I'm not deliberately misreading statements. Your using a strawman argument here.
I point out the scientific consensus on perception:
1 Perception uses everything available to the central nervous system. Hence the need for blind testing.
2 Auditory memory doesn't last long. That means, working from memory on how things sound is not accurate.
I stand corrected. At least, I got it half right, I knew it was an American, but obviously got the wrong one.
I believe he also said another lovely thing, something like for the weather, you go Heaven, for the company you go to Hell.
I thought as much, John. Now, try in vain to remember how many times the maths said that should be a 1k resistor, and your ears correct that to say 1.21k.
And after that, how many times did you have to recalibrate the circuit to get into harmony once again?
Mind you, I am definitely NOT complaining, heck, that's the real FUN part of doing it all. I do everything I do before that just to get to that part, because I feel that's where the real challenge is.
I find that my 'life experience' differs from the usual: you can't trust yourself not to be biased, that you can't possibly remember what a guitar (or any other instrument) sounds like, etc. These are rationalizations for insisting on ABX testing. Anyone can be fooled, and this is how people came up with these rationalizations.
And you know this - how?
Speaking only for myself, I usually don't do panel testing, but on occasion, if my regard for the author is high enough, I will do it when asked. I have done panel tests for people I have never seen or met, but have heard their work and thought it worthwhile, even if it wasn't how I'd do it.
My regard for the author's work really boils down to whether I think or know that the author will actually use the time and trouble the panel will invest in faurly evaluating his work. Authors are like the panelists, some are genulnely interested in improving their work, others just want the panel to coplement their genius.
Oh I don't design rocket boosters I design PCBs (and dare I say it, they are works of art).
Not to me, you don't need to at all.
My Romanian friend, who does all my artwork for me, amply proves by virtue of his work why it is called ARTwork. He goes beyond the electricals and actually tries hard to make it look good as well, never losing sight that it must first satisfy the electrical requirements.
So all I can do is to support your viewpoint.
Yessir, been there, done that, too.
I first heard the Marantz 3250B preamo and 170 DC power amp in summer of 1978. Then again in spring of 1979. Since then - nada.
Then, in 2011, I saw an ad for that combo. Called the guy up, arranged a meeting and drove 150 miles there and 150 miles back because I didn't want to trust the express services. Recapped both, and, with a little apprehension, switched them on. Closed my eyes and listened. All I had was a rationalozed memory based conclusion then of 32 years ago.
To my great delight, it easily surpassed any and all expectations I had, it sounded much better than I remembered it. The real thruth is, of course, that I now have much better speakers and a much better front end than I did way back then, which enabled me to hear what could not have heard way back then.
Over time, I suspected that the amp was the better of the two, so I tried several preamps and eventually settled on my Luxman C-03, which hasb't even been recapped yet. I just can't find the time for it just now.
So, while memory is hardly a sure fire affair, it actually can be quite reliable in general terms. I wouldn't trust myself for present acoustic memory for longer than 15 minutes, though.
You want to watch it, fdegrove, you're being a strawman again, and if somebody has a match or a lighter at hand ...
On the above point, in general, I'd agree with point 1. Most people are not able to disconnect the immediately unneeded senosry perceptions, when possible (unless the guy sitting next to you needed a bath badly 10 days ago and still hasn't had one).
On point 2, I can swear on my acoustic memory for 15 minutes, no longer. However, what will surely stay in my head is a general assesment of what I've been listening to, not enough for drawing fine lines, but quite enough to revisit say 10 years later and still maintain a 99% accuracy of general assesment.
Jan, that's one to remember.
Tattoo, much of what you say makes sense to me, but I have to disagree with your second point. It takes a long time to develop, but you can build up auditory memory and learn how to listen analytically. You can acquire a sense for what is right, and more importantly, what is wrong. For example, I can set the tweeter level on a loudspeaker fairly accurately by ear. And I can discern problems in speakers, including having a fair idea what is wrong.
However, it would be completely stupid to rely on this for more than a first evaluation. It has to be followed up by extensive measurement and analysis.
I can do this with speakers; listen and discern, but not with adequate amplifiers or cables. I am perfectly willing to accept, in principle, that others can what I can't. However, those who claim they can are never willing to prove it in a verifiable way. There is the rub.
Hopefully, the idea of *controlled* testing is not being missed. What is begin controlled?
Your bias.
The environment is set up up remove the subconscious cues that may make you pick one device over another. Bias is subconscious, once you peek, your conclusions are not to be trusted. It does not matter who you are....
Your bias.
The environment is set up up remove the subconscious cues that may make you pick one device over another. Bias is subconscious, once you peek, your conclusions are not to be trusted. It does not matter who you are....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.