I don't usually evaluate my own designs, except by measurement, the JC-3 is a noted exception. I used to rely on Bob Crump or Brian Cheney, but they are both gone. They taught me, even embarrassed me at times, but we were good friends while they were alive. Now I am stuck with doing it myself. It is better to have someone who cares about audio differences, other than yourself, to sonically evaluate the design. The designer is too 'close' to the design, normally.
Maybe I'm just 'tarded, but my sticking point is still the whole "Why can we only tell audio amplifiers apart if we can see them or are told they've been swapped?" thing.
I mean, could you imagine..setting up a high-end audio store, but behind the shelf you stick a stack of 10 random, decent build quality amps with a make-before-break rotating switch that's motorized, then right before someone buys the amp, take them around back and ask which of the 10 they are interested in.
I mean, could you imagine..setting up a high-end audio store, but behind the shelf you stick a stack of 10 random, decent build quality amps with a make-before-break rotating switch that's motorized, then right before someone buys the amp, take them around back and ask which of the 10 they are interested in.
That's only true if the frequency responses into the speakers and level are matched, noise is low, the amps aren't clipping, and they aren't suffering from gross distortion. That's when rationality ends and marketing begins.
Here is a thought,
How does a musician describe the sound of a musical instrument?
Ie according to this thread you can't describe sound..
So how can lets say a violin player describe the sound of two violins and why the preference between one or another..you know this is also true of a guitarist..I find it hard to believe a guitarist can't explain to another player why they like the sound OK the feel comes into it..
This instrument has great sustain and nice pitch..
Here is another one describe the difference between slinky strings and D'addario..
If a musician said these strings are a bit bright when new..I would instantly know they are not talking about the shine its the sound seems to have more high frequencies. ie brighter sound.
If someone says this smells bad we could argue what smells bad to one might not to another, but it normally means its repulsive to most people.
If someone says that system is biased to high frequencies..it does not describe the sound. If someone said it was bright I would Know what they mean.
If someone said there was a hole in the soundstage I would expect to find no image in the centre of the speakers..
If someone said it was out of balance I would expect the image on one side of the speakers.
I would not expect someone to say the amplification is higher on one side.
Its like saying that unless your a mechanic you can't drive a car because you don't know how a clutch works.
The average person can describe to a doctor symptoms they don't need to be a doctor or nurse to do it.
There is a side to this thread that is condescending to an average person that they lack the ability to describe a like or dislike to a sound.
Ie only an engineer can describe the sound of a system in technical terms linked to measurement.
From my experience its normally non engineers that are the best at listening!
Regards
M. Gregg
How does a musician describe the sound of a musical instrument?
Ie according to this thread you can't describe sound..
So how can lets say a violin player describe the sound of two violins and why the preference between one or another..you know this is also true of a guitarist..I find it hard to believe a guitarist can't explain to another player why they like the sound OK the feel comes into it..
This instrument has great sustain and nice pitch..
Here is another one describe the difference between slinky strings and D'addario..
If a musician said these strings are a bit bright when new..I would instantly know they are not talking about the shine its the sound seems to have more high frequencies. ie brighter sound.
If someone says this smells bad we could argue what smells bad to one might not to another, but it normally means its repulsive to most people.
If someone says that system is biased to high frequencies..it does not describe the sound. If someone said it was bright I would Know what they mean.
If someone said there was a hole in the soundstage I would expect to find no image in the centre of the speakers..
If someone said it was out of balance I would expect the image on one side of the speakers.
I would not expect someone to say the amplification is higher on one side.
Its like saying that unless your a mechanic you can't drive a car because you don't know how a clutch works.
The average person can describe to a doctor symptoms they don't need to be a doctor or nurse to do it.
There is a side to this thread that is condescending to an average person that they lack the ability to describe a like or dislike to a sound.
Ie only an engineer can describe the sound of a system in technical terms linked to measurement.
From my experience its normally non engineers that are the best at listening!
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Here is one more example,
If you said to someone this amplifier has a high 2nd harmonic content to the sound...and they were not an engineer and answered, "OH I thought it sounded warm compared to the other one"..
I think it makes the engineer look like a Prat never mind the measurements.
Regards
M. Gregg
If you said to someone this amplifier has a high 2nd harmonic content to the sound...and they were not an engineer and answered, "OH I thought it sounded warm compared to the other one"..
I think it makes the engineer look like a Prat never mind the measurements.
Regards
M. Gregg
Well, right, I mean..the criteria is essentially "proper amplifier". You can probably get one that meets those criteria for 20 bucks at the salvation army, so I'm making the leap that if a stereo shop stacked 10 amplifiers to trick people with, they'd at least not be hissy, or have something the others don't, like an output transformer, or that deadly 9th watt from some SET audiophile room-jewelery type toy.
If it says "Stereo Amplifier" on the outside of the box, the chances are somewhere around 100% that nobody could identify it when properly blinded, or not even told.
So since we're only talking about auditory differences...that only exist for a mathematically ignorant portion of amplifiers....queue the Yakety Sax song, I mean...right?
and around we go again... Yes under "controlled" conditions you can set it up so that people cannot tell the difference between two amplifiers.
Surely the point is that this is NOT the way people use amplifiers, and it is under the Uncontrolled conditions that are normal, where people WILL hear differences.
Whether they be nasty clipping behaviour, not coping as well with particularly reactive loads past a certain level (the speaker is in the feedback loop don't forget) or whatever.
Tony.
Surely the point is that this is NOT the way people use amplifiers, and it is under the Uncontrolled conditions that are normal, where people WILL hear differences.
Whether they be nasty clipping behaviour, not coping as well with particularly reactive loads past a certain level (the speaker is in the feedback loop don't forget) or whatever.
Tony.
But all we're controlling is "can the person see which amplifier is playing."
So..right, controlled conditions, meaning they're not allowed to know which one is playing by using anything but their ears.
If the controlled conditions were ...some guy with a MiniDSP manipulating the amplifiers, then I'd say, ok, sure, you've all got a point, ABX testing is crap, I mean, with all those controlled conditions and EQ they use, gosh why do people do this reliably in pretty much any other comparative testing procedure to scientifically valid success.
Are audiophiles exempt from science or what, this is what confuses me. Maybe if Bryston and Krell and Mark Levinson and Classe and pretty much anyone who makes anything with a markup that could only be considered a venial sin, would actually take that money and create real features instead of solid gold DC rail bars, maybe I wouldn't be sitting here right now seriously considering ordering an amplifier from a Hungarian company because it's the only thing I can find with dial-in power limiters that can sense impedance in real time and actually let you specify wattage limits.
Yes, so? We are listening to music - right? If someone described a photograph as making the subject look sexy, or a video as making someone look sick, is that not valid? Neither technical process is in itself sexy or sick, just the effect it may have on the subject matter. Ditto music.
Those are useful terms to be sure, but what do they have to do with how the music sounds? They are technical terms. The challenge is to discover what those things do to the subjective impression of the music.
You are over complicating it. It was a single woofer with satellite system. It was easy to delay the sub. In fact, we delayed it up to 10 meters to really screw things up. Still went unnoticed.
Slew rate is NOT the problem.
It's OK by me.
People describe food and drink by all sorts of adjectives that have nothing to do with food. It's usually done to convey an idea of the subjective impression the food makes. And that is important to many people.And as you well know "crunch" is very important to guitarists!
Of course that's valid, that's analogous to the recording. But if someone described a shutter mechanism as making pictures look sexy, you'd think he was... well... you know.
Of course that's music production, not reproduction, so design and operation are different than hifi. The amp is supposed to be distorting.
I probably wouldn't lump Bryston in there. Unless things have changed since the last time I used some of their equipment, they don't make unsupportable claims, and their amps are well-built, reliable, rock-solid, and sonically transparent. Their pricing is high, but not outrageous for the build and parts quality- and I mean quality, not "quality."
Have a look at the list of criteria for "controlled conditions" and not being able to hear any difference and I think you will find it was a lot more than just not being able to see which is playing!!!
One of the "conditions" was that the amplifiers are not allowed to clip. I think that you will find that MOST people have amps that do clip at times on transients. Not everyone has a monster amp, or highly efficient speakers.
do the same listening test with different pairs of speakers (rather than a specially chosen friendly set of speakers) and you may also find that suddenly difference do appear..
Just because one can design a test where no one will be able to hear a difference blind, does not mean that a different test can not be devised where people WILL hear a difference when double blind.
Tony.
SY
The recorded signal does not become sound until it is processed by the audio system. When we make a design decision about an amp, it is silly to presume it will have absolutely no effect on the final sound output. The same can be said of a change in a shutter spring of a camera changing the exposure curve and the resulting photo.
M Gregg
+1 One of the benefits of a framework like this, and it's certainly not the only one, is a repeatable and coherent way for musicians and technicians to communicate about a sound product. We need to stop bickering about the pettier stuff for now and come to a consensus about how to define sound categorically and comprehensively with words. My set of three are up and ready to be replaced with something better. Any takers?
The recorded signal does not become sound until it is processed by the audio system. When we make a design decision about an amp, it is silly to presume it will have absolutely no effect on the final sound output. The same can be said of a change in a shutter spring of a camera changing the exposure curve and the resulting photo.
M Gregg
+1 One of the benefits of a framework like this, and it's certainly not the only one, is a repeatable and coherent way for musicians and technicians to communicate about a sound product. We need to stop bickering about the pettier stuff for now and come to a consensus about how to define sound categorically and comprehensively with words. My set of three are up and ready to be replaced with something better. Any takers?
Where do I start?
First sentence: straw man. No-one ever claimed that.
Second sentence: show me a shutter spring that makes pictures look sexy.
If no statistically significant differences are heard, it is just a null result. That is, there is no confirmation,
but it is NOT evidence or proof that there is no difference.
Last edited:
Again, it's remarkably easy to differentiate possible variations in system performance - first step, completely ignore 'approved', audiophile, 'high quality' recordings; then, only use tracks which are borderline tolerable, for you, to listen to. Your hearing is so challenged by the disturbing distortions, attributes in the sound that the slightest variation in the structure of the sound stands out strongly, makes itself very obvious - this is akin to the person very quietly, in the distance, running a fork across the saucepan - do you notice it or not?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.