John,
You should really read up on 'controlled test'. The object is to avoid having to rely on trust.
From your posts it seems however that you are not interested in a well-designed and run test; you seem to be interested in trying to derail it at all cost. That's a shame, literally.
jd
Yes it would be an interesting execise, but from my experience, very few followers would cross the divide.
Each is valid to the individual's value system - likes/dislikes, or what they have programmed themselves to listen for.
People will often hear differences that fall in their "so what" category, but these differences are very important to someone else.
I would agree that there are very few systems that are beyond some fairly easy improvements.
If you had asked me 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but I have heard a couple of high efficiency full range speakers that have been so good in a particular aspect - midrange dynamic life - that I am using such a driver (in a 2.5 way system) in the speaker that I am currently building.
I am sure that this would be so, but others might prefer to do the equalisation in another way.
Are you talking about a behind the curtain style demo?
yeah, why not? that's what makes it fun.
all you can go on is what you hear. fun, and entertaining.
what's not to like?
so you use a 'single driver' but in a 2,5 way? (not sure if I understood you) that's fine. most single drivers need a bit of help😀 The point is tho, you need to hear *side by side* the single driver with it's ;horrendous' FR, vs that very same single driver without that horrendous response.
Then and only then can you say whether or not it is an advantage to have that FR or not. And whilst I am on this quickly, whatever attributes you particularly like about a single driver are NOT taken away by having it's FR 'fixed'...well, unless you particularly like that response!~!~
Make that single driver flat (or at least flatter) and bang, increased detail, intelligibilty, soundstage opens up.
We can agree at least it does quite a bit more than a mere cable.
Thanks for opening up the conversation, cables are so, hmm, outdated.
Seriously, rdf, you're still making things up. Why? I had thought you were capable of honest debate, but I'm starting to have serious doubts. You certainly read the protocol for TG's test, because you commented and discussed it extensively; the test wasn't suddenly developed in the last few days. Then suddenly, you throw an ABX box red herring into the mix (which you have never used, listened to, tested, whatever) and follow up that misrepresentation by attributing positions to me that I've never taken. That is, frankly, dishonest, and I am terribly disappointed that you, of all people, would resort to that sort of below-the-belt tactic.
Member
Joined 2004
Member
Joined 2004
Agreed.
I understand the thought process, but this I can´t agree with.
All I know about quantum physics is about stray particles that jump off the flow. They are not coliding with other particles, they just follow their own route for no apparently logical reason. But expecting sonic improvements from what happens at subatomic levels is just too extreme, I think.
Bybee´s "quantum purifiers" seem to me like a hoax...
Hi Terry,
I've posted it before, but it seems that we need a little reminder
Whether it's written word, or hearing what one wants to hear, makes no difference. Not when you believe in something.
Exactly. This is why I have repeatedly proposed (only to have audiophiles flee in fear), that rather than comparing this and that woo, instead, compare it all. I will bring my entire soundwave system into the home/room of the audiophile and directly compare against their belief system (the only stipulation being if the room is stuffed full of acoustic gauze and bandaids, that they be removable). No individual parts, the whole kit and caboodle, in front of a listening panel. A real "listening competition" as JC alluded to prior, but failed to disclose details.
Know how many takers I've had amongst the online big talkers? 🙂
cheers,
AJ
p.s. The international big talkers are safe, that's a bit outside my range.
You're not familiar with audiophiles...and their self-assessed abilities...are you?
Careful Paulo, careful. Are you aware that there is also Jack Bybee...the lawyer?
hi AJ. Not quite sure of why you posted your definition (again), not that I disagree with it. It's just you quoted me...I only quoted TG as rdf thought a switch box was part of the procedure. Tg would never allow it, just showing (as SY pointed out recently) that bthe switch box was just another misdirection.
The only changes I would make to your challenge (if possible).. it cannot be against someones 'established' system in their own room...they (all of us, we are human after all) could never admit wrongness of any description. So best off (as I alluded to earlier) simply having two representative systems of the philosophies at work in a new room.
(If I heard it against mine in my room, and did not want to admit the other was better, I can recognise mine and vote against the other. If I heard two new systems in a new room, had never heard them before I can make a value judgement on which I prefer)
That also means they need to be blinded. If I am 'anti dsp' (in my previous example) then I can simply 'choose to hear digital artifacts' if I know which is which.
If I am blinded, again I can only choose on preference. Unless of course I am a single driver guy and know multi driver systems have no such coherence, then I can safely choose the one with 'no bass and treble'!
Ha, chatted with a mate who was here recently about that (is it true that multi driver systems don't have the same coherence? etc etc), and to get around that I could decide (as I use dsp) to emulate at the LP roughly the same bass extension etc, ie hobble the bass on mine. Remove one of the major cues as to which might be which.
Wonder if that would get around the problem??
Anyway, I reckon that would be a fantastically fun day. You're safe from OS 'contestants', I (being out in the middle of our state) am pretty safe from australian contestants, more the pity.
The only changes I would make to your challenge (if possible).. it cannot be against someones 'established' system in their own room...they (all of us, we are human after all) could never admit wrongness of any description. So best off (as I alluded to earlier) simply having two representative systems of the philosophies at work in a new room.
(If I heard it against mine in my room, and did not want to admit the other was better, I can recognise mine and vote against the other. If I heard two new systems in a new room, had never heard them before I can make a value judgement on which I prefer)
That also means they need to be blinded. If I am 'anti dsp' (in my previous example) then I can simply 'choose to hear digital artifacts' if I know which is which.
If I am blinded, again I can only choose on preference. Unless of course I am a single driver guy and know multi driver systems have no such coherence, then I can safely choose the one with 'no bass and treble'!
Ha, chatted with a mate who was here recently about that (is it true that multi driver systems don't have the same coherence? etc etc), and to get around that I could decide (as I use dsp) to emulate at the LP roughly the same bass extension etc, ie hobble the bass on mine. Remove one of the major cues as to which might be which.
Wonder if that would get around the problem??
Anyway, I reckon that would be a fantastically fun day. You're safe from OS 'contestants', I (being out in the middle of our state) am pretty safe from australian contestants, more the pity.
Member
Joined 2004
Hi Boconner,
I was hoping to elicit some pointers, links etc from the purveyors of the esoteric theorems regarding signal transmission, as some people are 20-30 years ahead of mere mortals like myself I was hoping they would find the time to impart some of their knowledge for my perusal, as signal integrity is of paramount importance in the job I do, and I am beginning to fear that my education in the subject is flawed and I may have wasted 25 years of my life.
I was hoping to elicit some pointers, links etc from the purveyors of the esoteric theorems regarding signal transmission, as some people are 20-30 years ahead of mere mortals like myself I was hoping they would find the time to impart some of their knowledge for my perusal, as signal integrity is of paramount importance in the job I do, and I am beginning to fear that my education in the subject is flawed and I may have wasted 25 years of my life.
Since some seem to like blowing flames between objectivists and subjectivists, I could just as well say: The worst possible person to run a test is a committed objectivist with preconceived ideas of what is audible as they will use inferior equipment, a poor setup and untrained listeners not to have their preconceptions proven wrong.
Now have we reached anything by this type of reasoning?
Wasn't that said many times before? Of course sort out the system first, then experiment with cables if you want.
Indeed, if you can't hear a difference then don't bother just don't make it applicable to everybody else, results may differ.
AJ. Your definition of subjectivism or subjectivists "MIGHT" be true for a very few subjectivists at the lunatic fringe but, they're a very rare breed. However as a subjectivist myself, I can honestly state I've never met a subjectivist who believes or practices your definition of subjectivism.
Years ago I coined the expression LFO ---{Lunatic Fringe Objectivist}--- for objectivists who also behave in a manner that should embarass any rational, truly scientifically oriented objectivist. I remember a couple of such fellows on Audio Asylum. There was one who didn't deny there were sonic differences in audio components but, he insisted SPL variations were what accounted for ALL of them. The other fellow insisted there has been absolutely no improvments made in speaker technology since the AR-9 was released. I don't want to start anything with you AJ but, even your recent statement about the EnABL'ed drivers, based on your disbelief was and still is unobjective, unscientific and very much the same behavior as what you're accusing the subjectivists of i.e., assumes that (you) are infallible, in your belief system and you don't want to accept; therefore, isn't true!
I get a laugh out of objectivists who use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers that are highly equalized, and then want to comment on how horrible my single fullrange drivers are! My POV on this "if" a person wants to use mult-way speakers with steep crossovers, I have no issue with that but, if they have to highly equalize their speakers to get acceptable performance ---{be they single or multi-way}--- then how good is the speaker design in the first place? I'm willing to listen to both before deciding which is the closest to live, unamplified music, but using the mult-way speakers with steep (or not steep) crossovers, unequalized, like mine are would be a more fair and true comparison of the two differeing designs!
There's a huge difference between rational subjectivism and what you described. Rational subjectivists do not dismiss science and measurements outright. We just question why an audio component that has the best measurements, doesn't always sound the most like live, unamplified music does. So we've come to believe that measurements are useful tools but as Olson says and Toole paraphrases "In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."
However I question what does any of this have to really do with the topic of this thread?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Oh how true Andre. I cannot tell you how much $$$$$ I would have saved if I couldn't hear a differences in amps, preamps, CD players, tubes, ICs, power cords, speaker wires, etc. That said, I don't believe my system would sound as good as it does today if I couldn't!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Thanks AJ!
AJ, I have forgetten to say Thank You for recommending Don't Smoke in Bed by Holly Cole. I love this CD especially the cut "Get Out of Town" It sounds like the three of them Aaron Davis on piano, David Piltch on Bass & Percussion and Holly Cole's Vocals, are right there in front of me! Actually it's four on this cut with Howard Levy playing an awesome part on the Harmonica! This might just be the cut I use for the IC DBT!
Thanks again! Excellently recorded CD. I am throughly enjoying it!!!!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
AJ, I have forgetten to say Thank You for recommending Don't Smoke in Bed by Holly Cole. I love this CD especially the cut "Get Out of Town" It sounds like the three of them Aaron Davis on piano, David Piltch on Bass & Percussion and Holly Cole's Vocals, are right there in front of me! Actually it's four on this cut with Howard Levy playing an awesome part on the Harmonica! This might just be the cut I use for the IC DBT!
Thanks again! Excellently recorded CD. I am throughly enjoying it!!!!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Thats a misrepresentation of Floyd Toole's beliefs because he would be the first to say that if you can't hear it in a DBT, then you can't hear it, and the above phrase does not apply.
Not a misrepresentation, just missing a caveat. The other caveat is that one has to be very careful how one designs the DBT.
Many excercises passed off as DBT are not well designed
dave
Many excercises passed off as DBT are not well designed
dave
Testing validity
Then they aren't scientifically sound tests... this is relevant how?
Arguing that lousy scientific method and inattention to details results in erroneous results as some sort of condemnation of all of the various valid multivariate designs is like saying "my car won't run if I put water in the gas tank; hence cars are useless".
Then they aren't scientifically sound tests... this is relevant how?
Arguing that lousy scientific method and inattention to details results in erroneous results as some sort of condemnation of all of the various valid multivariate designs is like saying "my car won't run if I put water in the gas tank; hence cars are useless".
I agree with Auplater. And how is it that the use of poorly done DBT tests is criticized while the use of subjective listening - which no scientist would accept as having any validity - is not?
Floyd would say "First prove that you can actually hear what you claim.", then "The ear is the final judge". It's NOT a small caveat!!
Floyd would say "First prove that you can actually hear what you claim.", then "The ear is the final judge". It's NOT a small caveat!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.