Hello Stuart,
You are right, of course, but these differences are so clearly audible -at least that is the claim- we might as well go for the Full Monty....
You are right, of course, but these differences are so clearly audible -at least that is the claim- we might as well go for the Full Monty....
Notorious at times, AES pre-prints are not peer reviewed and often contain personal opinion, wild speculations, and bad experimental practice.
As I said unsupported speculation. If the AMA had a conference like this we would see papers on copper underwear and magnetic bracelets.
Last edited:
My one question I had for Earl was what did he think would happen if something like his distortion metric was done at -100dB max for any of the distortions, he never answered. It's fine amplifying types of distortion until they are obviously audible and making some plot of annoyance vs. level, but I fail to see how it applies in practice.
I find it funny that HVAC engineers have accepted a long time ago that there are cumulative effects of exposure to non-audible noise, while certain "audio engineers" insist that if you can't db ABX it, it can't have any effect. 🙄
Scott, I agree... but something is going on. His metric does appear on the surface to be a reasonable way to explain why people subjectively perceive sound produced by amps, etc., the way they do.
I'd speculate that xover distortion vs. feedback correction would dominate, but beyond that it might be too close to the noise floor to yield differences that are clear enough for the crude measurement methods available today. 😀
For example, your 797 and the "National" part that is still being made sound very close when I tried them, but not identical. It would be difficult to tell them apart in ANY format listening test. However, the opamp that sounded "better" than these would be relatively easy to hear in ANY test (where the gear was this gear, or equally suitable).
------------
I've already started a thread on the issue of hundreds of opamps and electrolytics in the recording signal path - scroll back and go there if that's your position. There are issues that arise with this, but they're not going to explain much except that ADDING in to existing "nasties" with more nasties of the same nature isn't going to help.
Also, the "mastering process" frequently uses methods, such as "de-essers" to remove the "nasties" that were created - the ones that many of you seem to think is imagination, or perhaps unavoidable??
-------------
As far as the rest of the DBT crowd, and "experimental construct" I'm fine with that.
Anyone who wants to work with me to develop some sort of or series of tests (DBT capable), via hardware that I/you/we develop, that we can use or make available for others to use, I'm more than into that idea. This is DIY audio, right?
But you don't need a DBT to taste something that tastes like merde, do you?
Nor do you need a DBT to see a TV that looks "wrong".
Nor do you need a DBT to see through a window that is clear and compare it to one that is imperfect, now do you?
Speaking of which - you know they sell this anti-reflective glass for use on outside windows, like skyscrapers and the like, etc. When you look through it there is less window. IF all you have ever seen is "regular" high end glass, then that is as GOOD AS IT GETS. Once you've looked through the anti-reflection glass, only then you know that your best glass lacks something.
Now, how about comparing different manufacturers of anti-reflective glass?
MAYBE a DBT would give us the LCD agreement - but that still may not be what is best, subjectively or scientifically.
IF you had ever heard a clear differential between (in this case) opamps, you'd not be calling for DBTs, you'd be going nuts trying to figure out WHY you heard that and what caused it. Not spouting off about this method or scientific tests, or DBTs or anything like that.
(To me this is like people who think that the Bose Wave Radio sounds as good as does my system (aka a "real hi-fi"), and then demanding tests to prove that the hi-fi sounds better. You don't NEED a test, if you can hear. Bose claims the Wave Radio thing does sound as good, and they advertise that!! They must have done DBTs otherwise they could be accused of false advertising, right??)
Now this opamp sound is perhaps in some cases more subtle, but NOT THAT SUBTLE.
So, I'd have to conclude that either just about EVERYTHING that I have ever worked on, used, designed or modified is FAULTY, and/or I have a great imagination when it come to hearing (I don't), or the fact that I (and many others have ZERO trouble hearing this) keep running into this over and over and over - over decades of time, or else it is really there and you just haven't heard it, or are unable to hear it.
Anyone who wants to, can contact me and stop over, I'll demonstrate.
It's TRIVIAL.
(btw, I have a QA400, and a VP2235, so you are free to test ur brains out on the bench, assuming you have the time to
do that...)
I'd speculate that xover distortion vs. feedback correction would dominate, but beyond that it might be too close to the noise floor to yield differences that are clear enough for the crude measurement methods available today. 😀
For example, your 797 and the "National" part that is still being made sound very close when I tried them, but not identical. It would be difficult to tell them apart in ANY format listening test. However, the opamp that sounded "better" than these would be relatively easy to hear in ANY test (where the gear was this gear, or equally suitable).
------------
I've already started a thread on the issue of hundreds of opamps and electrolytics in the recording signal path - scroll back and go there if that's your position. There are issues that arise with this, but they're not going to explain much except that ADDING in to existing "nasties" with more nasties of the same nature isn't going to help.
Also, the "mastering process" frequently uses methods, such as "de-essers" to remove the "nasties" that were created - the ones that many of you seem to think is imagination, or perhaps unavoidable??
-------------
As far as the rest of the DBT crowd, and "experimental construct" I'm fine with that.
Anyone who wants to work with me to develop some sort of or series of tests (DBT capable), via hardware that I/you/we develop, that we can use or make available for others to use, I'm more than into that idea. This is DIY audio, right?
But you don't need a DBT to taste something that tastes like merde, do you?
Nor do you need a DBT to see a TV that looks "wrong".
Nor do you need a DBT to see through a window that is clear and compare it to one that is imperfect, now do you?
Speaking of which - you know they sell this anti-reflective glass for use on outside windows, like skyscrapers and the like, etc. When you look through it there is less window. IF all you have ever seen is "regular" high end glass, then that is as GOOD AS IT GETS. Once you've looked through the anti-reflection glass, only then you know that your best glass lacks something.
Now, how about comparing different manufacturers of anti-reflective glass?
MAYBE a DBT would give us the LCD agreement - but that still may not be what is best, subjectively or scientifically.
IF you had ever heard a clear differential between (in this case) opamps, you'd not be calling for DBTs, you'd be going nuts trying to figure out WHY you heard that and what caused it. Not spouting off about this method or scientific tests, or DBTs or anything like that.
(To me this is like people who think that the Bose Wave Radio sounds as good as does my system (aka a "real hi-fi"), and then demanding tests to prove that the hi-fi sounds better. You don't NEED a test, if you can hear. Bose claims the Wave Radio thing does sound as good, and they advertise that!! They must have done DBTs otherwise they could be accused of false advertising, right??)
Now this opamp sound is perhaps in some cases more subtle, but NOT THAT SUBTLE.
So, I'd have to conclude that either just about EVERYTHING that I have ever worked on, used, designed or modified is FAULTY, and/or I have a great imagination when it come to hearing (I don't), or the fact that I (and many others have ZERO trouble hearing this) keep running into this over and over and over - over decades of time, or else it is really there and you just haven't heard it, or are unable to hear it.
Anyone who wants to, can contact me and stop over, I'll demonstrate.
It's TRIVIAL.
(btw, I have a QA400, and a VP2235, so you are free to test ur brains out on the bench, assuming you have the time to
do that...)
Last edited:
Bad analogy, there is a huge body of refereed literature on noise and health.
Disturbing effects of low frequency sound immissions and vibrations in residential buildings Findeis H, Peters E - Noise Health
Ignoratio elenchi. The question was why the *audio engineers* don't admit it.
A better analogy for this thread might be looking through 10 windows in cascade and claiming that the final one alone needs to be special glass.bear said:
That's a very good analogy. The more transparent the other 9 windows are, the more important it is
that the 10th window be transparent, and the more difference it will make. If the other 9 windows
are of poor quality, you will be less able to judge the tenth window. Just like an audio system.
DF96, that's an interesting conjecture.
But a whole lot depends on the specific situation... regardless, if you want to see the results of the 9 stacked, you'd want NO glass.
There seems little doubt that distortions can be additive - and while the analogy is not quite correct when comparing to glass - it does serve to illustrate an aspect of the problem(s).
maybe it's better thought of as a series of lenses?
or simpler still two lenses, the recording side and the playback side.
Assuming a mediocre lens for the first, then if you use an identical or maybe worse a lens with a different set of mediocrity, what would you see? At what point would the "view" through said lenses become "problematic". Would one want a nearly perfect lens for the second, or??
Again, an imperfect analogy.
But a whole lot depends on the specific situation... regardless, if you want to see the results of the 9 stacked, you'd want NO glass.
There seems little doubt that distortions can be additive - and while the analogy is not quite correct when comparing to glass - it does serve to illustrate an aspect of the problem(s).
maybe it's better thought of as a series of lenses?
or simpler still two lenses, the recording side and the playback side.
Assuming a mediocre lens for the first, then if you use an identical or maybe worse a lens with a different set of mediocrity, what would you see? At what point would the "view" through said lenses become "problematic". Would one want a nearly perfect lens for the second, or??
Again, an imperfect analogy.
Well. The numerologists will take a few measurements on the 10th window, then will predict your enjoyment when looking through the whole stack.
Last edited:
numerologists?
people who convert letters into numbers and make conclusions based on that?
those numerologists?
people who convert letters into numbers and make conclusions based on that?
those numerologists?
Thanks for the summary, Jan. I'm feeling generous enough to read the quote on assumption as a future hypothesis. And it if requires 40 dB to highlight differences, that's useful, more in a null sense (but still data!).
I'll still give it a read, if for nothing other than its methods to see if their conclusions are even warranted or if the results are just a shotgun blast.
The irony here is beyond hilarious.
What would you call your very celebrated self-reference to "rule #3"? Not so clever, no?
The irony is that for all these years the numerologists have continuously raised the standards for the listening tests, while not accepting any standard regarding how they obtain their numbers and what they represent. See, because it's expressed as number, it must be scientifeec. Case closed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.