Well Speedskater "if" you believe that's true, because I don't, then I highly suggest that you put your money where your mouth is!!!! Step up, take my place on the chopping block, add an ABX box and and extra set of ICs to your system and show everyone here how quickly and easily you can determine which IC is which!
However if I'm going to do this interconnect DBT, it will be done via the manuel switching of the two different ICs by someone who'll remain unseen by both SY and myself until the DBT is completed and we all see what my results are. Is that ok with you?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Microphones may be more sensitive than human ears.But they don't understand what they "sense"😀 Nature knew very well how to equip humans.All in good measure.In the future microphones will become even more sensitive.So?
Last edited:
No such thing and no-one has claimed that there is. One cannot prove a negative.
Two common ones: level matching and clipping/overload recovery.
That will completely depend on the details of the test. It is not hard to design a test that would detect interconnects, that's not the point. The point is, were the interconnects different as determined by a sufficient set of tests to find these differences. There is no point in arguing about the detection of two different things, it's the claim that audible differences can be heard when no measurement shows any significant difference.
I am the first to admit that the current array of measurements in common use is insufficient to predict audible flaws. Current measurements of distortion for example are completely useless and so its easy to find two amps that measure the same and sound different. But a different set of tests tells another story. One must look at very low level signals and the nonlinearities, not THD versus frequency, or level, those are pointless.
Loudspeaker axial response is also very close to being useless, but best case is that it's completely inadequite to detemine sound quality.
I think subjectivists completely miss the point. The point is that there is nothing that you can hear that I cannot measure. That's not to say that standard tests do this adequitely or that I have all the tests that meet this criteria, only that there is nothing that you can hear, which means an actual physical event, that cannot be measured. To believe such is to believe in magic in an age where we understand everything down the how the universe began. The world and particularly audio, are not magic, with things happening that defy explaination. It just isn't so.
Sorry I wasn't clear Tom. I have several systems with which to check on, not just one (dozens of speakers, amplification, AD/DA converters, etc., including headphones. So it's fairly easy for me to isolate what is an artifact of the recording vs system.
Like I said, I know exactly what was used in that recording as well (although Andre still hasn't figured out where he has "heard" Mogami yet 😉).
Hey, even better reason to have tubes 😉. I am seriously considering building one myself, for fun (not any sound waves benefit), just to have in the collection.
Chilly weather is good reason to listen to your stereo hours on end eh?
Right, but they also don't suffer from delusions. So what you see is what you get. You just have to know how to interpret it. Ever notice how the people who decry measurements the most are those who comprehend/measure the least (as in zero)?
cheers,
AJ
I have never questioned your superior intelligence.However,I can live without it.I will not follow you THAT low JA.
It doesn't take "superior intelligence" to understand that microphones are inanimate objects, not capable of fooling/tricking themselves, like a human can.
Any more than it takes "superior intelligence" to learn how to measure. Heck, even I can do it. What it does take, is a desire to learn. Where is your scientific curiosity Panicos?
Sir you have gained a lot of respect in my eyes with this last post of yours. I guess I'm not your typical subjectivist and that's why I refer to my belief system as Rational Subjectivism. I've always said I believe there should be a scientifically, verifiable, reason for every difference I hear. The difference between most objectivists and myself in this regard is "if" that reason isn't immediately forthcoming I don't immediately ASSUME ---{as if that's being either scientific or objective}--- that my ear/brain, which the vast majority of the time are providing me with reliable info. is now being fooled. That doesn't mean I rule out the possibility of that happening, it's just that I don't immediately A$$/U/ME ---{like most "supposed" objectivists I've met}--- that this is what's definitely happening. I'd prefer someone first determine the measurements are sensitive enough and they're measuring the correct areas that would provide the reason(s) for the sonic differences I'm hearing.
BRAVO! Before saying anything else please understand I'm not technically oriented so how I word what I'm about to say might not be using the correct technical jargon but, I believe you'll understand what I'm attempting to say. For years I've been laughed at, mocked and berated by the "supossedly" scientifically-oriented objectivits for saying "The measurements I see being used today are useless for correlating the info they provide with the sound I hear." For Example: Most anyone who regularly attends live, unamplified, musical events, be it a small jazz ensemble or a symphony has a good idea of what a saxophone's or violin's harmonic & timbrel sonic signature is. How then do I trust measurements that tell me one amp is more accurate than another, when the amp that measures as being more accurate doesn't sound like an accurate replication of the saxophone's or violin's harmonic & timbrel sonic signature? These are some of the problems I face as a subjectivist.
Actually sir. As a subjectivist and from what I've seen of the subjectivists I've met, we don't miss the point at all. Now that doesn't mean there aren't some subjectivists who'll believe putting photos in their freezers will make their audio systems sound better but, they're at the lunatic fringe of subjectivism IMO. I've met objectivists who believe ALL sonic differences are attributable to simple SPL differences or that speakers reached their pinnacle of performance with the release of the AR9. These objectivists are at the lunatic fringe of objectivism too IMO. Neither of these extremes (hopefully) represent the majority of their particular group.
As a subjectivist when I hear two different audio components be they wires, speakers or amps and someone cannot explain why they sound different with the measurements they're using, I don't immediately fault my ear/brain, which the vast majority of the time are providing me with reliable info. Instead I first fault the measurements ---{that have much more often failed to reliably correlate whats being measured with what I'm hearing}--- they're using for either not being sensitive enough or for not measuring the right areas that would provide the reason(s) for the sonic differences I'm hearing.
Albert Einstein once said: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." I've always believed a great paraphrase of that for audio would be this: Not everything that can be counted or measured counts or matters, and not everything that matters or counts can be measured or counted.
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
It would indeed be broken! We have no disagreement there Tom.
Actually Tom would you believe that not only do certain categories of individuals accept this:
for the output of an electronic device, they rave about how much it sounds like real (live) music...and pay $350,000 😱
AJ
wavac??😀
well said. There have been a few 'new' guys pointing out the lack of positive controls yada yada recently.
All in an effort to prove how completely unreliable any sort of dbt has been.
I would like to hear their evaluation of all the positive reported results from the believers with the same analysis applied to it.
Please at least one of those making these arguments answer this question?? Just one??
And whilst you're answering that, If TG passes the test, presumably all this talk of positive and negative controls, determination of sensitivty etc will be forgotten.
If he doesn't pass the test, presumably it will be because the test failed to include positive and negative controls, determination of sensitivity etc ??
In other words, the quality of the test or otherwise will only be known once we have the results. Am I close??
Sure you do.
You blamed the mics, in fact you used it as one of the arguments why you do not trust measurements (measurements use mics)
I picked you up on that remember?
Earle, I'd love to talk about this a little. And why not, there is no more substantive stuff in this thread to come, until TG does the test. (good luck TG, hope you are practicing)
It has come up again from TG recently (why do not measurements tell the story?) I should say 'tell the full story' as I don't believe at all the (seemingly) opposite view, that measurements tell us nothing.
The usual answer is 'the wrong measurements have occurred'. I can see that in a lot of cases that could be true.
This is my theory, I reckon that science CAN measure enough to be able to tell us all we need to know. Ie, there are no new measurements that need to be developed (not saying they are always used, as they're probably not).
However, what I feel is the missing link is a complete set of measurements that are NEVER done. And this is probably what would close the circle.
What is never done is what I whimsically call a Personal Preference Profile, PPP. I have no idea what it is called, but I have heard that some people have a medical thingy around their neck that records what they are allergic to, what anaesthetics etc they can have and not have etc etc. You know, as it's life and death it can be very important.
Audio (no matter how upset some get) is not life and death! so this type of stuff is not done.
What I mean is, some are (presumably) less sensitive to third harmonic distortion than others, but more sensitive to the fifth (just randomly making stuff up as I type).
Some can blissfully listen thru a plus or minus fifteen db difference below 200 hz, others (like myself) would quickly go nuts.
Stuff like that.
So, rather than what is customarily put forward that 'we don't know what to measure' (which leads to statements like 'science does not know everything', 'the ear is the most exquisite measuring device in the known universe'-my personal favorite😀😀) the truth is that science CAN measure enough to theoretically predict which product someone would prefer, it's just that we don't know the PPP sufficiently.
Did that make sense? And if it did, does any of that sound remotely plausible?
Its just one example of nature fitting us with bits that we don't need and which reduce our overall performance. Nature in fact is treating us as a work in progress or prototype if you like - some good ideas put together, but not yet production ready.
That Wavac review was really weired. I know the reviever very well and could not trust my eyes.
This is so far out of this world that it may have effected sales of that object not one yota.
In retrospect it appears to me like a harmless joke. Well, not if you take the content of that review literally. That positive subjective result was not understandable to me. I certainly felt no urgent need to buy it or the eagerness to hear it.
When that is right then everything i trust in is wrong.
This is so far out of this world that it may have effected sales of that object not one yota.
In retrospect it appears to me like a harmless joke. Well, not if you take the content of that review literally. That positive subjective result was not understandable to me. I certainly felt no urgent need to buy it or the eagerness to hear it.
When that is right then everything i trust in is wrong.
Actually AJ, that frequency response curve you showed, for a speaker, was not bad. You should have seen the FR curve for the exquisitely expensive Bowers and Wilkins 802 system that Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive showed during their lecture. Even the Genelec two way was vastly smoother in FR and phase response, and I know people who have the 802 system and are certain they have one of the premier speaker systems available.
Bud
Bud
I could never understand that speaker. Berore they had made 4th order L/R with at lot of components and now they go the "audiophile" road with as few components as posible.
hate that "straw hat" midranges.
hate that "straw hat" midranges.
Hello Bud
Bad in what sense? No matter how you cut it it won't sound right. If the low end is augmented it's going to help but if that is what you are going to hear it's way to bright. It should be tilted the other way unless that's an on axis response and the off axis rolls things off. If you have a toe in sweet spot I can see that as OK on axis. If thats your in room response??
Rob🙂
Last edited:
Nothing is perfect and I've never claimed that recording to be perfect also, I find it to be one of the better recordings though. Imagine how good it could have been if they have used better cables. 😀
Not all scientists agree that it is useless.On the other hand,I have some more serious things to worry about.Better worry(all of us)about what we are doing to nature,others and ourselves
Hmmm, but from your DBT experiences, like Curl, you clearly indicate that you do trust your eyes, just not your ears.
It is a harmless joke. A $350k one. Unfortunately, Subjectivist audiophiles do take these sort of reviews literally. How do you think they came to believe in and then "try" magic wires, caps, etc, etc?
Then according to TG54 you are a F and an I for judging without hearing and experiencing it for yourself.
It would be nice if subjectivists could agree on even one thing, but alas...
Not bad for you Bud, but hopelessly inadequate for my demands for fidelity.
I already have. Those and other audiophile junk jewelry, like Wilson, don't meet my demands either.
Correct, because Genelec engineers/builds to address real world audio quality issues, not subjectivist psychogenic issues like wires and caps. Their clients are far more demanding than audiophiles.
I know..and enjoy...the company of audiophiles too 😉
It was the only recording you would reveal as a reference you used for hearing cables. You mentioned nothing about siblance until someone with better hearing and a more revealing system told you about it. Now I'm sure you can hear it just fine 🙂.
If imagine is what you do best.....🙄
cheers,
AJ
As an objectivist i have to ask if there exists a valid double blind test that shows that these measured differences were audible? 🙂
There exists still the bet from Dave "all amplifiers sound the same" Clark, that nobody will be able to deliver a positive double blind test result if only the DUTs were equalized to the same frequency response linearity.
I think that your argument, while of course correct about the measurability in general, misses the point in this ongoing great debate.
Normally the subjective claim of audibility was dismissed by engineers relying on inadequate measurement procedures and questionable listening test results and therefore providing the general conclusion that there _can´t_ exist an audible difference.
That led to the unhappy situation that people lost there confidence in the objectivistic approach.
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.