I didn't lift the hood, but a composer/professor friend bought one and was entranced with the marketing spiel, buying it hook, line, and sinker, and going on about how much better it was than some mere noise reduction scheme described in a more orthodox fashion.
I was one who used to scoff at Carver's products, started in the 70's when his PL stuff would lose it's output stage at a Whim ...
This perception never changed when he came out with his power cube's , always felt the man gimmicky at best, until ...! A close friend , a die hard Carver fan if there ever was one, brought over one of his Carver amplifiers, model escapes me , but it had 2 round meters and damn it , sent my ML-9 packing ..
Then there was his Sunfire deal , that one sent a BAT VK500 packing, I can honestly say , the man maybe the most underrated designer HEEEVAR !!!
I will surely give these a listen when the opportunity arises ...
Scott, I can't hear through double-blind, when conditions are matched up the way they are supposed to be, like: level, polarity, and frequency response, so I think that the NULL results (I can't tell the difference) show that the test is FLAWED. This is because my ability to discriminate between otherwise 'identical' designs, returns when I can KEEP TRACK of the different designs while the music changes. NOT the specific IDENTITY of the compared designs, but the consistency of knowing which design is being listened to in the test. I decided about 1/3 of a century ago, AFTER trying ABX testing, that there was something wrong, AND that it would not give me any meaningful feedback. Since then, I designed the JC-80, Ultramaster (30 ips mastering recorder), Vendetta Research, CTC Blowtorch, etc, etc. You can't intimidate me into considering double blind testing as necessary or EVEN useful.
Last edited:
Many blind tests are logically flawed. The tests can only have value if the parameters are very narrow and also tests for opposites can be implemented. I.E. artifact present not present.
A good example of a flawed test is the typical one to determine hearing bandwidth. A sweep of a sine wave which showed failure to hear a 20Khz tone as proof that the typical limit is 20Khz has a logical flaw. It can also be proven repeatedly and transferrably that this is not the case with a simple test that anyone can do.
A good example of a flawed test is the typical one to determine hearing bandwidth. A sweep of a sine wave which showed failure to hear a 20Khz tone as proof that the typical limit is 20Khz has a logical flaw. It can also be proven repeatedly and transferrably that this is not the case with a simple test that anyone can do.
Amazing reasoning, if even in relaxed casual long term (but DB) listening I can't tell the difference I should still believe that there has to be one? Sounds like religious faith to me.
I remain more interested in preference where the difference is obvious.
Last edited:
I think you're propping up a strawman. It's terrifically easy to create two wav files with whatever source material you like, one with a 20kHz filter (your example), one without (having only the 96kHz filter needed for 192k sample rate), then ABX them in your own system with foobar. If you can hear the difference reliably, great. I've used the foobar plugin to convince myself that I can hear all sorts of signal processing, though I'll admit that I absolutely could not distinguish between 24/96 and 16/44 versions of the same high res recording played at a normal level. But my ears are old, so...
As previously stated tests need to be simple in order to quantify. This means developing methods that simplify an issue rather than trying to extract meaningful results from complex situations. I conducted the tests many years ago when my bandwidth was about 18Khz. The headphones were good quality nothing special from what I remember.
Wow, that uproar, five pages, but the presentation of an amplifier, seems that ultimate Harry Potter.
Bob Carver and Tim de Paravicini, are living legends of Audio Design, but I remember an interview
Tim de Paravicini, the Audio Interview: In Pursuit of Excellence
by Bruce Bartlett with Jenny Bartlett
Tim de Paravicini said
sic "I don't have to use tubes in my designs; I only do it for marketing reasons. I've got an exact equivalent in solid state. I can make either type do the same job, and I have no preference. People can't pick which is which. And electrons have no memory of where they've been! The end result is what counts."
What happened? Electrons from across the pond do not distinguish between the vacuum and a crystal structure?
However, for his great achievements, he deserves a place in the Hall of Fame, together with our Superheroes: Wavebourn, SY, Morgan Jones, Nelson Pass...
I don' t speak out loud because they will get big heads... I learned from the politicians.
And as the song says: It was in my village where I was born, what I wanted out there...
Bob Carver and Tim de Paravicini, are living legends of Audio Design, but I remember an interview
Tim de Paravicini, the Audio Interview: In Pursuit of Excellence
by Bruce Bartlett with Jenny Bartlett
Tim de Paravicini said
sic "I don't have to use tubes in my designs; I only do it for marketing reasons. I've got an exact equivalent in solid state. I can make either type do the same job, and I have no preference. People can't pick which is which. And electrons have no memory of where they've been! The end result is what counts."
What happened? Electrons from across the pond do not distinguish between the vacuum and a crystal structure?
However, for his great achievements, he deserves a place in the Hall of Fame, together with our Superheroes: Wavebourn, SY, Morgan Jones, Nelson Pass...
I don' t speak out loud because they will get big heads... I learned from the politicians.
And as the song says: It was in my village where I was born, what I wanted out there...
Last edited:
The test was very straight forward and came about because there happened to be a convenient mechanism. At the time when digital was gaining strength, there were rumblings about its limitations but no evidence so I started to test the simple things. The Sony 3324 digital multitrack had a convenient A/B switch that selects a path through the converters or a pure analog path so that you could verify the quality of the recording chain. So it was a simple matter of injecting a square wave and listening when the switch was activated. I heard a difference which was not one of level but specific to bandwidth limitation at sampling rates of 44.1Khz or 48Khz.
Having verified to my own satisfaction that I could detect the position of the switch I then told a colleague that I could hear the difference between an analog chain and a digital one as long I could choose the test signal. He was unaware that I had done any tests and flatly refused to believe me. So I used headphones and stood with with my back to the machine as far away as the headphone lead would allow. He toggled the switch in an attempt to fool me. He failed to trip me up even when toggling rapidly. The difference was easy to spot you did not need golden ears. On music signals it was very difficult to detect a difference.
Having verified to my own satisfaction that I could detect the position of the switch I then told a colleague that I could hear the difference between an analog chain and a digital one as long I could choose the test signal. He was unaware that I had done any tests and flatly refused to believe me. So I used headphones and stood with with my back to the machine as far away as the headphone lead would allow. He toggled the switch in an attempt to fool me. He failed to trip me up even when toggling rapidly. The difference was easy to spot you did not need golden ears. On music signals it was very difficult to detect a difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.