DF96, using your own CD player example, suggests to me that you are suggestable. If you read a few notes blasting a product which you initially accepted as all right and changed the mark downwards is to me not serious and not reliable. No comment by anybody has ever managed to turn over my own findings related to how something sounds to me, although I must mention that I am in a favorable situation to compare whatever to a small collectio ofthe same I generall always have around me. Even if something manages to pull wool over my ears with one samle, the others are there to put things back into a better perspective. Also, I do my very best not to approach any product with some personal grudge, e.g. I usually don't like a company's product, I try to regard each and every product model as a standalone model. And frankly, I want a result no matter whose drive it is using and whose DACs are inside, or even how many DACs are inside. My Denon may use a total of 8 DACs (in stereo, two and two DACs in dual differential mode for each channel), or 8 Philips DACs in case of the "real time" external DAC from Oz, etc.
I am a heavy daily user of my audio, so I know only too well what my key loudspeakers are capabile of delivering when driven by a good amp. If I get something close to those limits, that's a good amp, but like everybody else I have been bushwhacked both by small, cheap'n'cheerful amps doing better than expected and by big and expensice amps falling short of what could be expected from te manufacturer, model and its price. The best is that such dissapointments came from units truly well made, using good quality parts which nonetheless managed to deliver a sound below par, even if their measurements fully confirmed the manufacturer's specs and even surpassed them by a decent margin. In effect, measurements can be most useful to show what makes a unit fall short of its assumed quaity, and are a must only if you plan of making it right.
I am a heavy daily user of my audio, so I know only too well what my key loudspeakers are capabile of delivering when driven by a good amp. If I get something close to those limits, that's a good amp, but like everybody else I have been bushwhacked both by small, cheap'n'cheerful amps doing better than expected and by big and expensice amps falling short of what could be expected from te manufacturer, model and its price. The best is that such dissapointments came from units truly well made, using good quality parts which nonetheless managed to deliver a sound below par, even if their measurements fully confirmed the manufacturer's specs and even surpassed them by a decent margin. In effect, measurements can be most useful to show what makes a unit fall short of its assumed quaity, and are a must only if you plan of making it right.
In that case I guess you should not get a job mixing, because for that you have to make a lot of decisions mostly based on listening. It's not easy. Some people can reliably produces mixes that have a pretty consistent type of sound. For example, Chris Lord Alge has a reputation for being able to do that. However, he has standardized a methodology he likes to use to make the process go faster, and that also helps to get more reliable results than he could produce with a less structured approach.
Also, I doubt very much you go to the trouble to have your phone conversations transcribed so you can read them, not being able to trust what you heard.
Probably what you really mean is that you don't trust your ears when measurements are more reliable for making certain kinds of decisions, and when the potential consequences of bad decisions justify the added effort. For those cases, you make a good point. Except maybe if there is something you should be measuring that you aren't. Some people think measuring TIM is important now, but didn't think of doing it until somebody else came along and convinced them their customers might be hearing problems that the designer assumed didn't exist because existing measurements didn't show it very well.
The exact same thing has happened many times in the field of medicine. Doctors come to believe that if their tests don't show any abnormality, then the patient must be imagining things. Boy, were they ever wrong! Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, there is a long list. Some of them had to be dragged along kicking and screaming to accept Lyme was caused by an infectious agent. Of course they did, otherwise they would have to live with the knowledge of the abominable way they treated suffering patients who they threw out of their offices as liars, fakers, malingerers, and psychos.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
"Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development." -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.
"I don't trust my ears to give me reliable information. I regard those who do trust their ears as being naive" -- 96, 2016
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
"Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development." -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.
"I don't trust my ears to give me reliable information. I regard those who do trust their ears as being naive" -- 96, 2016
so, everyone still agrees that amps with 0.1% THD are essentially, for all intents and purposes, indestinguishable from each other (except possibly for overload recovery - which as we all know nobody ever runs their amp in to clipping, yes?)??
And that any differences below said level are "swamped" by speaker distortion?
Nobody wants to say what the amplitude (or whatever you parameter you choose) difference in frequency response that yields an audible or noticeable difference between two differing DF amps on a given "properly designed" subwoofer might be?
How am I ever going to get a solid answer so that it is possible to specify a system??
_-_-
And that any differences below said level are "swamped" by speaker distortion?
Nobody wants to say what the amplitude (or whatever you parameter you choose) difference in frequency response that yields an audible or noticeable difference between two differing DF amps on a given "properly designed" subwoofer might be?
How am I ever going to get a solid answer so that it is possible to specify a system??
_-_-
Last edited:
I agree that it is not reliable. That is exactly what I was saying!! I was being very serious.dvv said:
I have no intention of looking for such a job. I prefer music to be as unmixed as possible. You know: music from musicians, rather than music from mixing 'engineers'.Markw4 said:
Given the context in which my remarks were made, that seems to be an unncessary comment.
I made it clear that my ears can alert me to the presence of a possible problem. I said "I don't trust my ears". I did not say "I always ignore my ears".
Very poor analogy. Surprisingly common, though. Once you have been here a few months you will see others trot it out from time to time.
I seem to have offended some 'golden ears' and alarmed the 'we know nothing' brigade. I can live with that.
DF over 40 is essentially willy waving.
Also should be noted that low DF can actually help LF response. Read Rod Elliot on this and also http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_cs_amps.pdf . You are asking for black and white, which given your website gushing is a little odd.
Also should be noted that low DF can actually help LF response. Read Rod Elliot on this and also http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_cs_amps.pdf . You are asking for black and white, which given your website gushing is a little odd.
billshurv said:
billshruv, best look in the mirror. your posts are generally negative.
I have yet to see anything definitive on these very basic and simple questions from you, and you seem to want to engage me personally - this is the second time.
I am NOT asking for "black & white".
An appropriate answer from you, with the same "information" might go like this:
A) "According to Rod Elliot anything over a DF of 40 makes no audible difference, except for..." (you have no personal experience)
B) "My experience parallel's Rod Elliot's and I have found that a DF of 40..." (you have some experience & have a citation)
or maybe
C) "I think that something around a DF of 40 usually/likely/probably makes no difference..." (pointing at a threshold...aka not "black & white" and taking a non-confrontational tone)
Your comment is condescending and arrogant, and unnecessarily so.
Btw, where is YOUR website?
What have you built?
Why not tell us about your system, and share that with us, if only to provide us all with a
solid point of reference??
Suggest you restrain yourself from posting for a week or so, show some self-control.
The earth will continue to spin.
You remind me of Lord Pinkerton. (many here will know who that person is/was)
Last edited:
I think 96 is being less than complementary to people who do believe they have some reason for trusting their ears. To them, the implication that they are naive probably doesn't feel very good. Some could take it as an insult. I wonder how Mr. 96 feels to be on the receiving end. It probably doesn't feel good either. However, attempts at civil explanations directed at Mr. 96 often seem to lead to responses from him that sometimes feel derisive and unduly judgmental to the targeted recipients. Given a choice, I would prefer that all sides try to be more respectful.
Honestly, I don't think its such a poor analogy. The doctors in question were over-confident, judgmental, very intelligent, and highly educated. I think they are similar to you in those general respects, and that your personality tends to be more or less of that type. Doesn't mean you are bad person, its just what genes and a lifetime of experience produces. But it might suggest there is more you could think about besides how your hearing influences your perceptions. And I don't mean that in condescending way. You are a very smart guy, no question. Still, you might get something out of reading the book, Thinking Fast and Slow. It does't cover everything, but you might learn some stuff you would find useful about other people and even yourself. Practical stuff that you can use.
I said that people who trust their ears are naive. I did not say that they are stupid or immoral or deaf or anything else which could be reasonably interpreted as an insult. If people are offended at being described as 'naive' than maybe discussion on an internet forum is not for them. I did not say that people should ignore their ears. I did not say that ears cannot provide useful information.
All that is happening here is the audio equivalent of suggesting to a man that his driving is not entirely perfect. In some cases the 'offence' is magnified by income or supposed reputation resting on the claim to possess golden ears. In the weird and wonderful world of audio, I guess even those who are wise enough and humble enough not to trust their ears have to pretend that they do in order to maintain credibility with others making similar claims.
All that is happening here is the audio equivalent of suggesting to a man that his driving is not entirely perfect. In some cases the 'offence' is magnified by income or supposed reputation resting on the claim to possess golden ears. In the weird and wonderful world of audio, I guess even those who are wise enough and humble enough not to trust their ears have to pretend that they do in order to maintain credibility with others making similar claims.
Jakob2 and Markw4, you do see the light! I have been suffering this sort of criticism for years now, yet my reality does not change, I hear differences, and reliably enough to act upon them into more successfully designing new audio equipment.
This all stems from a reactionary group of professors and the developers of the ABX testing procedure back in the late 1970's. It became a 'cult of objectivity' leaving out any subjective opinion, no matter how carefully obtained, and gets worse even today. It reminds me of the Freudian cult of belief in psychology that was so strong in the 1950's-1960's where everybody it seemed could not believe in their own reasons for being who they were, but needed an analysis from a specially trained individual to know which end was up, so to speak. We don't hear much about that anymore, perhaps it was a little too extreme?
Well I find this blanket condemnation of subjective listening experiences too extreme, also. A person cannot relate their own listening experience without being told what they were really thinking by others, who consider themselves the 'experts' in this sort of thing, and they don't even have degrees in psychology! '-)
This all stems from a reactionary group of professors and the developers of the ABX testing procedure back in the late 1970's. It became a 'cult of objectivity' leaving out any subjective opinion, no matter how carefully obtained, and gets worse even today. It reminds me of the Freudian cult of belief in psychology that was so strong in the 1950's-1960's where everybody it seemed could not believe in their own reasons for being who they were, but needed an analysis from a specially trained individual to know which end was up, so to speak. We don't hear much about that anymore, perhaps it was a little too extreme?
Well I find this blanket condemnation of subjective listening experiences too extreme, also. A person cannot relate their own listening experience without being told what they were really thinking by others, who consider themselves the 'experts' in this sort of thing, and they don't even have degrees in psychology! '-)
Just make this your signature line, save you sprouting it every so often
No one is condemning listening its just some of us are humble enough to realise now that our hearing and perceptions in general can be fooled and as sight is our number one sense it overrides hearing, you cannot deny this it is a proven fact.......
The former is a consequence of the latter. When I realise I am wrong I change my mind; what do others do?john curl said:
You believe you hear differences, and your customers believe you hear differences. Some of them are real differences, and can be explained in engineering terms. Some of them only appear when you and the customer are aware of the circumstances which allegedly cause them.
Where is this "blanket condemnation"? Did I say ears have no place in judging audio systems?
Just make this your signature line, save you sprouting it every so often
No one is condemning listening its just some of us are humble enough to realise now that our hearing and perceptions in general can be fooled and as sight is our number one sense it overrides hearing, you cannot deny this it is a proven fact.......
Yea of course, our hearing can be fooled, but if you really think that "exclusion of sight" does make the hearing sense more reliable, you are simply mistaken.
Btw, "you cannot deny this, it is a proven fact ...." .
To be serious, dismissing "sighted listening" is naive too (at least to a certain degree).
Most people i know are using controlled tests (including blinding) to confirm something they already tried without "blinding" .
That would be a totally useless procedure if "sighted evaluation" were as unreliable as you seem to think.
But of course one has to learn to listen (especially listening for evaluation purposes) and also of course humans are not perfect, but that holds still true under controlled conditions.
That´s the reason why results of controlled tests in the audio field are in no way per se more correct or consistent or reliable .
It is hard work to do valid and strongly biased (which means often strongly biased in favour of "no difference") experimenters tend to oversimplify the problems.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.