Attached is a brief excerpt, starting from page 75, from the book, The Righteous Mind. Pretty interesting line of research, seems to me anyway. The book is highly recommended. First came across it myself when trying to figure out why so many books, and so many business school articles, seem to get management of people, and leadership in general, so wrong. There is much more to that story, of course. But this is a good tidbit.
I'm trying to devise a way of allowing (if they exist) some of these differences in opamp sound to be made more audible... something like this......
Anyone remember Doug Selfs precision preamp and its fabulous tone controls ? It uses 6 opamps per channel for the tone section, my version uses 7 because I correct the inverted phase of the tone section. The opamps for bass and treble correction (and the variable turnover frequencies) are only really in circuit when the controls are moved away from centre.
With me so far 🙂
A feature of Dougs design is that the boost and cut response curves are mirror images of each other, something that matters little in practice because you can't use both at the same time...... however 😉
If I make recording with controls set to give a specific response, I should then be able to pass that recorded signal through the chain again with an inverse characteristic and so obtain an original flat response characteristic.
Small variations will not matter. How so ?
They will not matter because you don't get to hear the original recording. All you will hear is the final result of having passed through 7 opamps twice over. You can then hopefully just compare the different opamps.
Sound interesting. I thought so too 😀
No promises at this stage but I'm going to have a little play around. I have got enough new 5532's and 4558's PLUS five new LM4562's.
I thought of doing three runs,
1/ 4558
2/ 5532
3/ I'm not sure so you tell me. Personally I'm thinking using the five 4562's for the input, mixer and treble stages (that's U1, U2 U6 and U7 in the left hand diagram) and also for U3 in the bass. I would retain 5532's for U4 and U5.
I also have 6 new OP275's which might make an interesting comparison.
Interested ?
Here is the test set up proposed. The overall response in blue can be seen. The green trace shows the initial treble boost and bass cut applied. The second stage will mirror that giving a flat response overall.
Anyone remember Doug Selfs precision preamp and its fabulous tone controls ? It uses 6 opamps per channel for the tone section, my version uses 7 because I correct the inverted phase of the tone section. The opamps for bass and treble correction (and the variable turnover frequencies) are only really in circuit when the controls are moved away from centre.
With me so far 🙂
A feature of Dougs design is that the boost and cut response curves are mirror images of each other, something that matters little in practice because you can't use both at the same time...... however 😉
If I make recording with controls set to give a specific response, I should then be able to pass that recorded signal through the chain again with an inverse characteristic and so obtain an original flat response characteristic.
Small variations will not matter. How so ?
They will not matter because you don't get to hear the original recording. All you will hear is the final result of having passed through 7 opamps twice over. You can then hopefully just compare the different opamps.
Sound interesting. I thought so too 😀
No promises at this stage but I'm going to have a little play around. I have got enough new 5532's and 4558's PLUS five new LM4562's.
I thought of doing three runs,
1/ 4558
2/ 5532
3/ I'm not sure so you tell me. Personally I'm thinking using the five 4562's for the input, mixer and treble stages (that's U1, U2 U6 and U7 in the left hand diagram) and also for U3 in the bass. I would retain 5532's for U4 and U5.
I also have 6 new OP275's which might make an interesting comparison.
Interested ?
Here is the test set up proposed. The overall response in blue can be seen. The green trace shows the initial treble boost and bass cut applied. The second stage will mirror that giving a flat response overall.
Attachments
I think what goes on with people theorizing why they can hear something that many other people don't seem to hear, is that they hear something and conclude there must be some reason why they hear it and other don't. So, like with other areas where people have different perceptions, they go looking for reasons that would seem to explain what they perceive. It's like, "I hear it so there must be a physical reason why, I just have to find the reason," and so the search commences.
One possible reason is always the what is heard is an illusion. When this occurs, it is is part of what is termed as Naive Realism, something which gives all humans trouble at times. Another possibility is that there is no illusion, but the perception nears the limits of human sensory ability and not everybody is going to be able to experience it for themselves.
For people that don't hear what Jay hears, part of what goes on with them is a search for evidence that supports what they are inclined to believe. Again, they could be right or wrong at this point.
Finally, we come to the place of scientific evidence in the debate. In the end, scientific evidence is the best we have, yet science is always a work in process and science is supposed to be updated as new research is developed. In the past, particularly in medical research, and hearing ability is an issue for medical research, there have been many, many occasions when scientists confidently insisted that all the facts were fully known and understood, and some people are just crazy. Very much like we see here with the evidence about hearing. But, some of the previous arguments have been about whether a whole list of things are scientifically unassailable and people who think otherwise are crazy. Some issues include the existence of, Lyme disease, Gulf War Syndrome, PTSD, etc, etc, etc.
My point is that while scientific evidence is the best thing we have, we are often overconfident that we know things with more certainty than is probably justified. My own guess is that of some things some people claim to be able to hear, and that others deny is possible, probably some of them are imaginary and some real, but just not yet properly understood.
Last edited:
Your choice of words, not mine.
But after 13+ years of special wisdom routine, it's grown rather old. IIWY, I'd start to question the motivation for doing/continuing so, it's not like you convinced others, merely kept yourself hyped for top level performance.
(my personal problem/issue is that I'm unable to forget, the wiring of my head can't delete polluted data, not even the time and date it was stored : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...age-audio-power-amplifier-22.html#post2533796 )
😎If someone can find which is the op-amp, then i believe many deaf people here 😀 Including my self....
Please use popular op-amps.
I do have a rather high IQ but I'm not an electronic expert! My consciousness of being not an expert will always leave me some kind of uncertainty:
For example, I'm a computer guy, of course I know a little about cryptography (SHA) and digital files. But my knowledge is not perfect, so I allow a room for uncertainty... So when I created a file with 0.2dB difference, and the result appeared to have the same file properties and SHA, I didn't judge that the files must be (100%) identical...
Not all programs can show file properties up to bit level. How about the SHA? I don't know, but if I duplicated a file, the meta data will change, but should SHA also change? It shouldn't!
In 2 audio files consisting of different meta data but similar PCM audio bits, is it possible that they have different SPL when played through a specific software? Yes. The software can read the meta data and increase the playing SPL based on that information...
MP3 has standard, and like many other standard, there is "free data segment" intended for custom programming by device or software manufacturers. I don't know about this precisely but I think it is possible that the 2 files I posted have different SPL when played through the software that produced the files in the first place...
There is a common problem where
It is possible for two files to have the same file size and same SHA hash and yet contain different data. It is merely unlikely, perhaps astronomically so, but not impossible. The chances of a software bug causing playback at the wrong volume is merely more likely, and as a matter of degree, much, much more likely. When expressed accurately as probabilities, rather than with absolute certainty, the effect should be to help minimize the risk of overconfidence.
Given that we all have human brains, we are going to have some issues with a tendency towards overconfidence, as we do with the other cognitive biases. More likely than not, that is.
Yet, in some sense, not all common problems of cognitive bias are likely to be of equal magnitude. A good book that goes into a lot of detail about the current state of understanding of these issues is Superforecasting, by Philip Tetlock.
A master class on the subject that picks up where the book leaves off is available as a series of online videos. They are free to watch here: https://www.edge.org/event/edge-master-class-2015-philip-tetlock-a-short-course-in-superforecasting
Given that we all have human brains, we are going to have some issues with a tendency towards overconfidence, as we do with the other cognitive biases. More likely than not, that is.
Yet, in some sense, not all common problems of cognitive bias are likely to be of equal magnitude. A good book that goes into a lot of detail about the current state of understanding of these issues is Superforecasting, by Philip Tetlock.
A master class on the subject that picks up where the book leaves off is available as a series of online videos. They are free to watch here: https://www.edge.org/event/edge-master-class-2015-philip-tetlock-a-short-course-in-superforecasting
Last edited:
What's wrong with the original recording? Is it suspected to sound better?
Do you mean, it is like passing Angelina Jolie and Jodie Foster through a molen concrete mixer and then judge which one is the prettier?
Intelligent by what definition? Not in terms of intelligence of the type measured by IQ tests?
@Markw4. You could save yourself a lot of time looking at some of the posting history. There are people here who have been banging heads for 10-15 years on here on exactly the same subjects. There is a care in the community aspect to this site which attracts its fair share of Poe's law research subjects. Sadly some of the real characters have ended up getting themselves banned, but their posts are still there for posterity. Sometimes trying to analyse them is a waste of time as they won't change, even when they show 8/8 on identical files in an ABX test.
Hell if you go back far enough Jacco's posts actually made sense when sober!
Jay has been claiming 7/8 and 8/8 on blind tests for many years. Leaves us with two possibilities...
Hell if you go back far enough Jacco's posts actually made sense when sober!
Jay has been claiming 7/8 and 8/8 on blind tests for many years. Leaves us with two possibilities...
Apparently, one of the possibilities is that he has been relying on the same buggy software for ABX testing for many years. Or, would that be a third possibility?
I guess you are also saying he might not be accurately self-reporting his results. Could be.
An intelligent individual would include a fool-proof safety margin and opt for both.
Not sure in which order. But I either forgot I already had a lunch date with the chef de clinique (aka chief executive surgeon, CES) or am way too stupid, in which case the 1st mentioned scored a 100 percent success rate or the doc told me I need not bother.
(you'll have to excuse me, my gums retract the moment I read words of an iqy nature)
Not sure in which order. But I either forgot I already had a lunch date with the chef de clinique (aka chief executive surgeon, CES) or am way too stupid, in which case the 1st mentioned scored a 100 percent success rate or the doc told me I need not bother.
(you'll have to excuse me, my gums retract the moment I read words of an iqy nature)
Last edited:
Don't under-estimate him, Bill. You should learn to know your limits.
Hehe Jacco is always smart.
Hehe that leaves YOU with 2 possibilities. Jacco has 4 😀
Mark is obviously know a lot about Psychology. He might have 10 😀
Bill, we're just looking into a mirror. What we see in others are ourselves.
If someone can find which is the op-amp, then i believe many deaf people here 😀 Including my self....
Please use popular op-amps.
Just giving it a try now. I've made a couple of alterations to the detail, just have to see if the methodology works. I'll explain all later.
No, but it must by definition be 'different' as the final files will have been through two A/D processes.
The final files must all be viewed as if they were originals. Its up to the listener to decide if any difference (audible) exists.
IME digital volume controls are typically not fully transparent.
By this I mean that minor volume control changes can cause slight change in artifacts, and it may well be that this change in artifacts more so than the absolute volume change is what Jay is picking up.
IME with digital volume controls, certain settings sound 'right' and settings close can sound 'wrong'.
Just sayin'.
Dan.
By this I mean that minor volume control changes can cause slight change in artifacts, and it may well be that this change in artifacts more so than the absolute volume change is what Jay is picking up.
IME with digital volume controls, certain settings sound 'right' and settings close can sound 'wrong'.
Just sayin'.
Dan.
Last edited:
Yes I have been using Foobar. Does it mean that my 8/8 were invalid because of that? Hehehe no. I'm not the only one who uses Foobar. Assume FoobarABX has a bug where the first file will be played at lower SPL such that I can ABX 2 identical files. Wow! What is the playing level difference of these files? Somebody must measure it, who knows it is 0.0001dB 😀
Just remember that this is not about who has the best ears. All of this ABX thing is in line with proofing my hypothesis and finding the answers to a lot of questions/mysteries in audio...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.