I'm not sure what you're kicking? By what measure (subjective or objective) are these ostensible fixes, fixes?
Last edited:
Are you using "legends" with its traditional meaning of 'stories told within a culture about people and events long ago, which may or may not be true yet seem to affirm that culture' or the meaning adopted by youngsters: 'a person who is still alive who has had a brief career in the public eye with a well-oiled publicity machine'? In audio, either meaning is possible.SY said:
In this case, more the former, though often created by the latter as a means of differentiating parity products.
OK, then if there's no target or specific questions to be asked, you're done here. No experiments needed.
eh? you have all the answers to all the questions, is that what you suggest?
I'm "done here"?? What do you mean?
I proposed a test that might have the ability to find "differences" and find some thresholds, in fact it seems to have a basic viability that has been echoed by a test you did and published. That's not a "target"? Or do you refer to a different kind of target?
I am interested in bona fide investigation, willing to be shown to be wrong. You're not?
Insisting over and over that there is nothing to do, and nothing "wrong" hearkens back to earlier insistence's of years past (various people, various orthodoxies) - many of which were shown to be incorrect over time. Perhaps you are correct, but perhaps not. So why jump in and repeat this over and over?
I'm "done here"?? What do you mean?
I proposed a test that might have the ability to find "differences" and find some thresholds, in fact it seems to have a basic viability that has been echoed by a test you did and published. That's not a "target"? Or do you refer to a different kind of target?
I am interested in bona fide investigation, willing to be shown to be wrong. You're not?
Insisting over and over that there is nothing to do, and nothing "wrong" hearkens back to earlier insistence's of years past (various people, various orthodoxies) - many of which were shown to be incorrect over time. Perhaps you are correct, but perhaps not. So why jump in and repeat this over and over?
Last edited:
Well, you know I actually opened up SY's LA vol 2 article and read the part about his buffer test. I do not recall reading the article before now.
So, I'm thinking, wow this is pretty much what I suggested! Hmmm... no need to do this again!
But then, I thought, well this is a very long article explaining and debunking the art of testing for auditory difference in hi-fi, right? With rock solid conclusions too. Or at least the basis for the reader to draw a conclusion or two?
Looking back through the article, I searched in vain for the detailed exposition regarding the test conditions. You know the equipment, detailed measurements, etc. Yes, I know that this sort of thing will not fit into the magazine format, but today it can be posted to a website as supporting information, even the LA website ( I guess )?
Also who was the test subject? One person?
What was the source material?
So, I guess perhaps there is some more to do...
_-_-
So, I'm thinking, wow this is pretty much what I suggested! Hmmm... no need to do this again!
But then, I thought, well this is a very long article explaining and debunking the art of testing for auditory difference in hi-fi, right? With rock solid conclusions too. Or at least the basis for the reader to draw a conclusion or two?
Looking back through the article, I searched in vain for the detailed exposition regarding the test conditions. You know the equipment, detailed measurements, etc. Yes, I know that this sort of thing will not fit into the magazine format, but today it can be posted to a website as supporting information, even the LA website ( I guess )?
Also who was the test subject? One person?
What was the source material?
So, I guess perhaps there is some more to do...
_-_-
On the raw unvarnished surface it stacks up like this so far:
SY's ears + system : >6 buffer audibility
Bear's ears + system (plus multiple other "testees") : </=1 buffer audibility
Of course the buffer used was unspecified. Maybe a BUF03?
_-_-
SY's ears + system : >6 buffer audibility
Bear's ears + system (plus multiple other "testees") : </=1 buffer audibility
Of course the buffer used was unspecified. Maybe a BUF03?
_-_-
I wasn't even going for being that contentious. 🙂 Just I have no idea what JFetter is identifying in these past links as features, much less whether there's an issue in the first place.
Bear -- what was the circuit? What were your testing conditions? I.e. what would it take for me to try?
SY -- noninverting OPA134 daisy-chain, right? Does it need a resistor in the feedback path (couldn't find anything on the DS), or simply connecting the output to -IN? No fixed listening time throughout the comparison? (Take as long as you want flipping through the 4 options before pairing) And, just to be sure, you knew prior to the test the length of the two daisy chains? I.e., when you "failed" at 6, you knew that the daisy chains were 6 and 5 long, respectively, but were unable to link the 6's together and the 5's together?
And, no, Bear, I'm not taking SY's word on gospel, perhaps with my younger, albeit poorly trained ears, I could hear differences down further! But I'm also willing to bet there's no way in hades that SY could hear the difference between 6x OPA134 and 6x OPA1641 (both jfet and general purpose).
There's nothing in there about debunking. Perhaps you read something else as well? Sorry that 14 pages was onerous for you, there's many books written about the subject of sensory testing, and this is a very brief survey.
It was more than a "survey" and to say otherwise is completely and totally disingenuous.
pg 171 "There was no difference that I could hear."
pg 172 "...this time I guessed wrong..."
pg 171 "There was no difference that I could hear."
pg 172 "...this time I guessed wrong..."
...think he wants a vacuum tube in the front end?
I've asked here if there was any interest in a collorative effort to build just such a test platform, one that could be duplicated and/or shipped around.
you can PM me if you want to discuss a simplified approach that may or may not work for you. (anyone can)
I agree here SY would be unlikely to hear that difference. (I have no idea if I can, because I have not used those chips thus far...)
SY studiously avoided all mention of his system and what he was listening to, etc... readers here probably do not find it terribly onerous to notice this however.
Bear -- perhaps the most important things to take away from reading SY's article are the ease of fooling oneself and how to do (relatively) simple experiments at-home to hone in on design decisions *for oneself*. The latter scope is important, because as we move up in generalizing the problem the difficulty in test design becomes very difficult.
For example, if I were to make a conclusion using SY's experiment as a "data point", it's that adding a OPA134 plus all the inline switches has a pretty small effect. And probably to other opamps of similar characteristic and (purported!) transfer function. So not a grandiose assessment. And subject to change with new info.
So, rather than focusing on 5 vs. 6 vs 1 opamp in-chain and whether SY's system is up to snuff, I'd like to suggest that asking "what can I find out for ME" instead. I'm lazy-ish, so I just use other peoples already-built tests. 🙂
For example, if I were to make a conclusion using SY's experiment as a "data point", it's that adding a OPA134 plus all the inline switches has a pretty small effect. And probably to other opamps of similar characteristic and (purported!) transfer function. So not a grandiose assessment. And subject to change with new info.
So, rather than focusing on 5 vs. 6 vs 1 opamp in-chain and whether SY's system is up to snuff, I'd like to suggest that asking "what can I find out for ME" instead. I'm lazy-ish, so I just use other peoples already-built tests. 🙂
As I have said, complex music is muddled (to me) with op-amps ( defined as differential input , extreme open loop gain , feedback global and/or multi-path).
Replay same track under identical conditions - more correct , pleasing and accurate using only local feedback.
I thought possibly the right valve in front could fix it (maybe)
Replay same track under identical conditions - more correct , pleasing and accurate using only local feedback.
I thought possibly the right valve in front could fix it (maybe)
So the dozens of opamps the music went thru before you got it didn't "muddle" the sound, just the last one you use?
What exactly is the connection between the first part of the article and the second part/aspect?? If it is clear in your mind, I sure don't see it at all.
You talk about "valid" test methodologies, and then proceed to test yourself, and then state your findings as if they have some merit or validity, merely because your wife did the "switching"??
Earlier you lambasted the idea that a test would be valid unless a blind monkey did the switching, or did I misread that too?
Apparently "valid tests" don't need to state the test conditions at all?
that's what I take away as the conclusion, not the ones that are alleged, or the nominal focus.
The test, like so many others published as well, are valid FOR THAT SPECIFIC TEST, and may or may not be generalized. CLEARLY NOT without the test conditions being defined explicitly.
Bah.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.