A person with 10000 listening-hours may perceive the stereo illusion differently from a person with 10 listening hours. An experienced stereo listener may have trained/modified their brain to such an extent that their experience no longer correlates with the direct and natural experience of new listeners. Stereo imaging really is as fakey as the 3D of movies in the theaters: The finer points may be, rightly, lost on someone who either thinks it's all hokey or doesn't really care.
This just keeps getting better and better. I'm starting to feel like a character out of a book. Try reading "The Apology of Socrates" by Plato.
Quote "So by extension, a violinist that has played four hours a day for 2500 days (almost seven years), he won't actually play better. He will will instead just imagine that he plays better. Or something like that... "
Playing the violin is a peforming art, Charles. Designing and evaluating amplifier's . . . Do you really want to go there?
Playing the violin is a peforming art, Charles. Designing and evaluating amplifier's . . . Do you really want to go there?
With modern recordings - guitar bands, or worse, electro-pop - this is true. The records do not attempt to conjure up a real space. But with Decca & EMI orchestral recordings of the 60s/70s, played back on LP: I think you get a reasonably natural presentation.
If you are designing and listening (in between measuring, yes) then of course, calibrate your ears with live acoustic music, and stand in an open place and listen - bird song and ambient sounds arriving from varied directions can remind you what to aim for.
I am reminded of the time when I was reading our encyclopedia as a young child. It said that "oxygen is a colorless, odorless gas". Now, I knew that the human sense of smell acclimates to smells after a period of hours or days. A farmer who keeps pigs does not even notice the smell, while a visitor can barely stand the stench.
So I (quite wisely) asked my parents, "How do they know it is odorless?" If a being from another planet that did not breathe oxygen visited the earth, perhaps he would notice a distinct odor of the oxygen...
So is oxygen really odorless? How do we know?
Why someone cannot accept that there are differences between humans is beyond me.
Some cann see better, some can smell better, etc.
Isn't it possible that some few can hear very good?
Why can’t you just accept what Charles Hansen ist saying? What’s the problem exactly?
Do we have to „protect“ (sic) someone from putting wooden blocks under his cables? Is that dangerous? Will they risk serious family problems?
Apart that, who protects me from wearing out my mouse scroll wheel, when I have to scroll through some extremly long posts?
Some cann see better, some can smell better, etc.
Isn't it possible that some few can hear very good?
Why can’t you just accept what Charles Hansen ist saying? What’s the problem exactly?
Do we have to „protect“ (sic) someone from putting wooden blocks under his cables? Is that dangerous? Will they risk serious family problems?
Apart that, who protects me from wearing out my mouse scroll wheel, when I have to scroll through some extremly long posts?
LOL! 😛
There is the "ignore" function. The problem is that sometimes there are tidbits worth reading. Also the continuity of the story is disrupted...
But after a few failures, I now keep a spare mouse in the closet. I hate it when the scroll wheel wears out.
Charles
At least you can 'smell a bit of logic in there somewhere'. Many of us, after reading some of this stuff are have a different kind of olifactory experience I can tell you.
At least you can 'smell a bit of logic in there somewhere'. Many of us, after reading some of this stuff are have a different kind of olifactory experience I can tell you.
I'm with Charles on the wood blocks. About 10 years ago, my CTC partner, Bob Crump set up our CES listening room each year. Even before we started to work together, perhaps 20 years ago, I always noticed that Bob's room at CES sounded better than the equipment that he sometimes had in use, would be predicted to do.
Bob used 'risers' on occasion, as well. He showed me the 'way' when my intellect was leading me astray, with just measurements, and my designs were falling out of favor of the critics and listeners, alike. He got me to improve cables, connectors and the like. It really put us on the map with the CTC Blowtorch, which physically was his design, and launched the JC-1, and JC-2 products for Parasound, giving us an 'A' rating with the critics, and attempting to give Charles Hansen 'a run for his money' in the race to make great audio equipment.
To ignore what we advise, will just keep you in the dark, sonically.
Bob used 'risers' on occasion, as well. He showed me the 'way' when my intellect was leading me astray, with just measurements, and my designs were falling out of favor of the critics and listeners, alike. He got me to improve cables, connectors and the like. It really put us on the map with the CTC Blowtorch, which physically was his design, and launched the JC-1, and JC-2 products for Parasound, giving us an 'A' rating with the critics, and attempting to give Charles Hansen 'a run for his money' in the race to make great audio equipment.
To ignore what we advise, will just keep you in the dark, sonically.
I fail to understand why so many are trying to tell others what they can't do? If they will not prove their abilities, they are charlatans? I am really worried about those that feel the need to tell others what they can or can not do. Are you protecting your own egos as you fail to recognize that this might be a possibility?
And to suggest that others can not have these experiences because science has yet to find a means to understand it, rather doing its best to denounce it, is even more odd to me. Science has shown the ability to look the other way at anything that they can not prove, until someone with a more open mind, looks at the issues differently and then finds a way to prove the once "blasphemous".
I fail to see why the personal attacks on those that listen is tolerated here, regardless as to whether you agree or not. It would seem that this is a club, where if you are of one thinking, you are welcomed, but if you are of another, them you are looked down upon and ridiculed. Sounds like a commentary on our world today.
And to suggest that others can not have these experiences because science has yet to find a means to understand it, rather doing its best to denounce it, is even more odd to me. Science has shown the ability to look the other way at anything that they can not prove, until someone with a more open mind, looks at the issues differently and then finds a way to prove the once "blasphemous".
I fail to see why the personal attacks on those that listen is tolerated here, regardless as to whether you agree or not. It would seem that this is a club, where if you are of one thinking, you are welcomed, but if you are of another, them you are looked down upon and ridiculed. Sounds like a commentary on our world today.
Last edited:
LRShooter you make some great points. When certain people stop dismissing alternative technical approaches to audio Nirvana, then maybe we can move forward. Somehow, I doubt it though.
Oh Dear.
I have a vague memory of someone auditing the Avalon Ascent MKI in the late 1980s, deluded to think it was the 1st ever dynamic loudspeaker to outbetter an ESL, and assuming that the bloke who developed it must have extraordinary hearing capability.
Would it be safe to conclude that if someone stays under 10K hours he's got nothing to worry about ?
What do you mean exctly? What alternative technical approach? And how do you define audio nirvana? If you tell who dismissed what, we could discuss further.
@ Scott_Wurcer & Anatech,
while i can understand any concerns regarding sighted tests it is obvious that simple double blind testing suffers from bias effects too.
If somebody does not believe in the audibility of a certain effect under test, than he _must_ use a triple blind protocol to exclude this bias mechanism.
I´ve read with interest Anatech´s description about the modification of old amplifiers to improve their performance (if i got it right, soundwise and in technical terms), but a controlled listening test to confirm this impression of superiour performance was not mentioned.
It seems that we all like to have controlled test results if we don´t believe in the audibility of a certain effect, but are much more forgiving if we do hear something.
A true scientific approach of course would require controlled listening tests in any case and the protocols would try to control every thinkable bias mechanism.
But tests highly controlled would produce results with diminishing practical impact.
Every decision in developing a test protocol is (up to a certain degree) a subjective one; for example choosing a level of significance is deliberate, inclusion of positive and negative controls (and to what extent) is based on subjective impression and at least any perception based evaluation is subjective by definition.
Btw, working as a reliable detector under test condition requires experience too.
ThorstenL is right; Fremer did not take part in the Carver story, but he did a quite successful double blind on amplifiers back in ~1990/91, but his results were discarded because he was the only one who could detect something. 😉
@ ThorstenL,
both Brandenburger and Johnston worked at Bell labs and did a couple of papers together.
Afair none of the two official presented algorithms worked good enough so the idea was born to combine the best of the two in a new approach.
while i can understand any concerns regarding sighted tests it is obvious that simple double blind testing suffers from bias effects too.
If somebody does not believe in the audibility of a certain effect under test, than he _must_ use a triple blind protocol to exclude this bias mechanism.
I´ve read with interest Anatech´s description about the modification of old amplifiers to improve their performance (if i got it right, soundwise and in technical terms), but a controlled listening test to confirm this impression of superiour performance was not mentioned.
It seems that we all like to have controlled test results if we don´t believe in the audibility of a certain effect, but are much more forgiving if we do hear something.
A true scientific approach of course would require controlled listening tests in any case and the protocols would try to control every thinkable bias mechanism.
But tests highly controlled would produce results with diminishing practical impact.
Every decision in developing a test protocol is (up to a certain degree) a subjective one; for example choosing a level of significance is deliberate, inclusion of positive and negative controls (and to what extent) is based on subjective impression and at least any perception based evaluation is subjective by definition.
Btw, working as a reliable detector under test condition requires experience too.
ThorstenL is right; Fremer did not take part in the Carver story, but he did a quite successful double blind on amplifiers back in ~1990/91, but his results were discarded because he was the only one who could detect something. 😉
@ ThorstenL,
both Brandenburger and Johnston worked at Bell labs and did a couple of papers together.
Afair none of the two official presented algorithms worked good enough so the idea was born to combine the best of the two in a new approach.
"while i can understand any concerns regarding sighted tests it is obvious that simple double blind testing suffers from bias effects too.
If somebody does not believe in the audibility of a certain effect under test, than he _must_ use a triple blind protocol to exclude this bias mechanism."
If the believers can get it right in a DB test (e.g. put the cable up on a block, put a ferrite in the mains cable side etc) then it should prove the hypothesis. You dont need to bother about the non believers, who as you correctly state may in fact choose not to believe they can hear anything.
If somebody does not believe in the audibility of a certain effect under test, than he _must_ use a triple blind protocol to exclude this bias mechanism."
If the believers can get it right in a DB test (e.g. put the cable up on a block, put a ferrite in the mains cable side etc) then it should prove the hypothesis. You dont need to bother about the non believers, who as you correctly state may in fact choose not to believe they can hear anything.
Ineed. It has been stated here repeatedly that you cannot prove a negative. SY has explained this several times, but hey, that was yesterday ..😱
jan didden
I am not a biochemist but I would suggest that odour is not an intrinsic property of a gas (or a pig) but a property of the (gas:typical human nose) combination. Martian noses are probably different from human noses, so will be able to detect different gases. When an encyclopedia says a gas is odourless this is shorthand for saying that a typical human nose detects no odour even when initially exposed to the gas. In the case of oxygen this would be difficult to test as we are normally exposed to it all the time, but short-term exposure to pure oxygen might show this (or would we be detecting the absence of nitrogen?).Charles Hansen said:
On the other hand colour is a property of a gas - you can measure it with instruments. OK, there is a slight confusion here between optical properties and our perception of them but colour is different from odour.
I would say that depends on it's make-up 😉 Have you ever smelt ozone? That certainly isn't odourless, and it IS oxygen. 03 🙂
Tony.
Another area where science meets the human body is medicine. If the scientific method had not been applied to the latter, we would still be drinking snake oil for a lot of the ailments we have developed really working therapies for. Thanks to the scientific method we now have drugs that are known to work, even if we don't always understand exactly how..
A few remarks. When John Curl mentions he has run out of measurements, I immediately believe him. If your gear is so good that it dives under the resolution of your measurement capabilities, there is little to be gained in that area. So, if in that situation, you still perceive qualitative differences between two pieces of gear, what do you do? The first step to take, I would venture, is to put up these two pieces of kit to blind testing. Just to make sure there actually is a difference. Nobody says you have to include untrained listeners in such testing. If you are the one who perceives a difference, it would even make sense to do the blind testing yourself. This is what SY suggests and I don't see why you would not participate in such venture.
Then, if there indeed is a repeatable difference, one that does not show up in measurements, you struck gold. Because you would be hot on the trail of a further real possibility to make audio better.
Another area where the analogy with medicine might be useful is that of the placebo effect. It really exists, and genuine, verifiable changes can be observed in subjects reacting to a placebo. So, Charles Hansens wood blocks might actually enhance the perceived sound for some. However, we need blind testing to know if it is a real effect, or a placebo one. Again, if it is a real effect, we might be onto something, even if it does not yet show up in measurements (yet). My hunch is that Block Supports are just what the corresponding acronym suggests, and therefore I do not expect major scientific progress to be derived from this experiment. But that does not invalidate the concept for it's placebo value.
A few remarks. When John Curl mentions he has run out of measurements, I immediately believe him. If your gear is so good that it dives under the resolution of your measurement capabilities, there is little to be gained in that area. So, if in that situation, you still perceive qualitative differences between two pieces of gear, what do you do? The first step to take, I would venture, is to put up these two pieces of kit to blind testing. Just to make sure there actually is a difference. Nobody says you have to include untrained listeners in such testing. If you are the one who perceives a difference, it would even make sense to do the blind testing yourself. This is what SY suggests and I don't see why you would not participate in such venture.
Then, if there indeed is a repeatable difference, one that does not show up in measurements, you struck gold. Because you would be hot on the trail of a further real possibility to make audio better.
Another area where the analogy with medicine might be useful is that of the placebo effect. It really exists, and genuine, verifiable changes can be observed in subjects reacting to a placebo. So, Charles Hansens wood blocks might actually enhance the perceived sound for some. However, we need blind testing to know if it is a real effect, or a placebo one. Again, if it is a real effect, we might be onto something, even if it does not yet show up in measurements (yet). My hunch is that Block Supports are just what the corresponding acronym suggests, and therefore I do not expect major scientific progress to be derived from this experiment. But that does not invalidate the concept for it's placebo value.
Ozone is a separate issue, as it is a different molecule. What it does show is that we smell molecules, not atoms.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.