Wahab,
thanks for the reference. I didn't read the paper just looked at that one page. From the graphing that must be an average number and I see by the gunfire testing that there can be many confounders to those values. Left ear vs right ear for an American male driver and other such things. If your a white collar worker who has spent there life in a quite office vs someone who has worked in an industrial setting would make a major difference so it is hard to qualify on an individual basis.
I was doing some speaker testing with my Clio system using sine wave testing at 1 watt so it wasn't like I was pushing the volume to hear particular frequencies. I do believe that we do lose hearing acuity with age, I'll give you that, it goes along with eyes.
thanks for the reference. I didn't read the paper just looked at that one page. From the graphing that must be an average number and I see by the gunfire testing that there can be many confounders to those values. Left ear vs right ear for an American male driver and other such things. If your a white collar worker who has spent there life in a quite office vs someone who has worked in an industrial setting would make a major difference so it is hard to qualify on an individual basis.
I was doing some speaker testing with my Clio system using sine wave testing at 1 watt so it wasn't like I was pushing the volume to hear particular frequencies. I do believe that we do lose hearing acuity with age, I'll give you that, it goes along with eyes.
He did a lot more than matching the FR. He also matched the distortion. His theory is that a -70dB null is all that's required for no one to be able to perceive a difference.
That s a test that include the general population , i dont think that there s tons of people doing gunfire every day and moreover without acoustic protections, as for the drivers their ears are not that stressed by abusive levels that are close to 120db SPL at 1m..
From thoses curves the level at wich pain occur is about 120dB above the threshold of audibility and at 1W/m2 accoustic power, while audibility threshold is at 1 picowatt/m2 and can be even lower for some individuals, so we have very good resolution when it comes to sensing volume variations (0.4dB is the threshold of this parameter) and absolute level as well as for frequency discrimination but the very parameters that we can measure even with grossly accurate instrumentations are definitly out of reach for our ears.
What is most ironic is that volume in DBT must be strictly equal from an amp to another so that s a sensitivity that is not at play when doing those comparisons, only thing that remain is auditive measurement of parameters like distorsion and frequency response, those latter parameters are also perfectly useless unless it s to compare speakers but for amps only gross variations can be detected.
I would like to remind everyone that IF you do a double-blind test and you possibly fail to detect differences that you ordinarily find discernible, SY and everybody else with never let you forget your failure. That is why SY brought up a test done about 30 years ago with Ivor T, of Linn Sondek participating. Of course, IF you participate in a blind test and succeed, then they will say that you were just a lucky guesser, or there was something wrong with the test. You can't 'succeed' in either case, so I refuse to be 'dared' through insults or whatever to do double-blind testing the way that Lipshitz and SY would approve of.
If those DBT tests were done in rooms whose temp and hygrometry werent controled and kept within 0.1% variation then they are completely rubbish, and i dont think that such important protocols were even respected, so the actual debate is rather around thoses variable listening conditions.
Last edited:
A well-designed test? No, not everyone has the dishonesty of a huckster, as difficult as it is for you to believe. See the multitude of solid tests showing that humans have sensitivity to lots of variables that just don't happen to be what you're selling.
Hard to understand how someone can fail at a test one time and forever after discount that type of testing. That would be like giving up on learning algebra because you failed or got a C on a test one time and saying the test was the problem. I realize the proper conditions must be part of the blind testing protocol but the basis of the testing seems fairly straight forward as far as the end results. you can hear a difference or you can't, really not much more than that.
I think you go wrong when you talk about "failing." If you hear no difference between A and B ears-only and you're an honest practitioner, that's data and can be very useful to know. It's only when it involves your paycheck that you can "fail." Valid data are never "failure."
BTW, are you still in Ventura?
BTW, are you still in Ventura?
No Sy,
I'm in the Hollywood Hills above Mulholland Drive. Five minutes away from Airto's house. I was thinking about that word failing, that is why I used the C grade. Yes if you can't tell the difference that is a real result that can say a lot about what you are looking for. Null is not a bad word in my dictionary.
I'm in the Hollywood Hills above Mulholland Drive. Five minutes away from Airto's house. I was thinking about that word failing, that is why I used the C grade. Yes if you can't tell the difference that is a real result that can say a lot about what you are looking for. Null is not a bad word in my dictionary.
Last edited:
Some of those tests were performed between the 50's and 70's, almost all the older men would have been exposed to a lot of artillery fire, some to extreme levels.
For instance my Grandfather lost one Brother in the Somme battle.
was it Carlin who had the routine about the nomenclature shifts to make things sound less severe? From Shell Shock to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
most expensive as well, but worth every penny.
The Audio by Van Alstine is a kilobuck; I talked that down to 800. Not just an ABX box but has lots of options to compare complete systems and has levelling capabilities.
It is a bit loud with its relays, but there are always relays switching even when going from A to A so in practise it is not an issue.
Jan
Thanks.
I had forgot the transitional ones.
I just said the same thing re George in a completely different context.
Constant volume is actually a problem in a way. If you made me ABX my preamp against VAC's flagship, at constant volume, maybe I wouldn't be able to know. If you adjusted the volume each time a significant amount while I was listening I'd be 100%. It's not because one is step-less and the other is not, but because the VAC's volume device drastically changes how it sounds as volume changes.
I imagine some devices really show their differences when driven at different levels. Well, I know this is true, just don't have personal examples off hand.
I imagine some devices really show their differences when driven at different levels. Well, I know this is true, just don't have personal examples off hand.
50 years ago many valve amps had superlative performance. It's only last 15 years or so that lousy performance has become a marketing thing in boutique audio!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.