The paper you mention was published in 2011? A book was published in 2006 covering much more, and awareness of it might have saved the dissertation writer some work: https://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Anticipation-Music-Psychology-Expectation/dp/0262582783 It's a good book too. Worth reading, IMHO.
I did say use both if possible did i not? Just what exactly are you criticising here? I know Sennheiser product well enough, i've had HD 595, 600 & 650's over the years. I also much prefer to listen to music through speakers. My point was to ALSO use decent headphones if possible when evaluating op-amps. There are good reasons for doing this. 🙄
Marce, the problem with this is everybody sees themselves as a realist and thinks their facts are the one and only true facts. It human nature to be that way. People don't normally think they are wrong and the other guy is right, if they did they they would be depressed, and they would not be in disagreement with the opposing side.
Last edited:
Davym, I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. I'm trying to point out that I have seen a better side from morinix and I think that better side serves him well. On the other hand, there are some people who enjoy trolling and think it's funny or think the people they are trolling against deserve it, or they just like to hurt other people. There are all kinds of people in the world, and that's why there are also moderators and rules in any forum that remains well functioning: to address problems with people who only respond to punishment, or don't respond to anything at all and maybe in the worst case may end up getting banned altogether. Hopefully, all the people here are willing to consider playing nice and making some progress with audio issues.
Last edited:
T'aint my facts regarding LP vs Digital though, plenty of info out there and plenty of threads on here regarding it, this is what I mean about myths in the hobby, digital sources are better, why it cant be accepted I don't know... Its becoming a hobby of discussing how fine the weave is on the Emperors new suit...
It's not clear if you want to know why some people don't think digital is better, or if you just want people who like LP better to give up their preference and submit to your insistence that they are wrong and you and other people on your side of the issue are right.
Try reading my posts instead of putting words into my mouth that I have not uttered... Its getting a bit monotonous.
What I am saying is it is a fact that digital has better bandwith, less noise etc. and is a better source than LP,s, this is a scientific fact, go do some research instead of trying to extrapolate things in posts that are not there... If you look at a post I did earlier today:
Scott replied along similar vain earlier why have you not jumped on his post...
What I am saying is it is a fact that digital has better bandwith, less noise etc. and is a better source than LP,s, this is a scientific fact, go do some research instead of trying to extrapolate things in posts that are not there... If you look at a post I did earlier today:
So stop trying to say things for me that I haven't said, read what I put, it is usually very specific and not open to such wide ended interpretation, just stating a scientific fact. Your reply just reinforces my view of this hobby and what a joke it is becoming, I have not said anywhere people who listen to LP's are wrong, look at my posts on the long thread discussing digital and LP and the post bI referred to earlier and you will see I enjoy listening to LP as well as digital. You are twisting reality for what reasons I do not know or understand, but I do request you to stop it and read what I say, do not try and interpenetrate it as an argument.
Scott replied along similar vain earlier why have you not jumped on his post...
There's an all girl band from Brisbane that call themselves the K*nts, ever see them?
New England spelling is somewhat confusing
https://thebmg.bandcamp.com/track/****
(pus-sey : a gang of audiophiles)
Last edited:
That's irrelevant, I used the term auditory savant and I know you are familiar with the meaning. I mean someone who is ordinary in most ways but has an unusual ability there are more than one way for this to manifest. I know underlying medical issues like autism are often present but put that aside. What's important is the special ability usually lies far outside the norm. Factoring 30 digit numbers in your head, etc. For chess, Bobby Fisher comes to mind (though he did have social issues).
So I mean someone whose listening acuity is out there on the fringe and IMO should have no problem "performing" in most any situation. There are musical savants, people that can listen to a long piece of music that they have never heard and play it back perfectly, why not listening savants? ABX/ DBT wouldn't matter, though they would find all the cheats.
An additional point is I see what IMO amount to savant like claims made here all the time without the willingness to perform them with no conditions.
Last edited:
I personally believe that some audio tests are biased AGAINST hearing differences. The ABX test is the primary example. I certainly am lousy at them, but then I can be very good at blind tests, where I can keep track of the source, even though I don't know what it is, or even if I have heard it before. I have worked with people who do even better than me in both areas, but I have done OK over the decades. Now WHY is this so? I have some ideas, but that is not the point, in my opinion.
What I need to do in order to be CONSTRUCTIVE is to be able to detect differences between op amps or other devices, so that I can decide which to use when I design products. I can't just say: 'select any one of these op amps'
because I do hear a difference with them when they are put in a worst case situation, like unfiltered MC phono cartridge signals (for example), where perhaps just listening to the news on TV or radio may not make any significant difference. Right now, I am listening to FM news radio through a Comcast cable source and playing MET 7 speakers. This is NOT my high resolution set-up, that is positioned next to it, or my STAX electrostatic headphone playback system, both of which have much more bandwidth and sensitivity to audio aberrations.
Personally, I am uncomfortable using these headphones, BUT they bring out differences, so I sometimes use them. A pair of Grados, etc, would be better for general listening. My good speakers (Wilson) and my STAX headphones are TOOLS that I use, so that I can satisfy just about anybody with my designs, not just some people, who insist that the same thing can be done for just about any way that is convenient or lowest cost. I get plenty of feedback from my customers over the years, to keep me going in this direction.
Please, please, will someone make the virtually 'perfect' IC audio op amp, and save me time and money with my future designs?
What I need to do in order to be CONSTRUCTIVE is to be able to detect differences between op amps or other devices, so that I can decide which to use when I design products. I can't just say: 'select any one of these op amps'
because I do hear a difference with them when they are put in a worst case situation, like unfiltered MC phono cartridge signals (for example), where perhaps just listening to the news on TV or radio may not make any significant difference. Right now, I am listening to FM news radio through a Comcast cable source and playing MET 7 speakers. This is NOT my high resolution set-up, that is positioned next to it, or my STAX electrostatic headphone playback system, both of which have much more bandwidth and sensitivity to audio aberrations.
Personally, I am uncomfortable using these headphones, BUT they bring out differences, so I sometimes use them. A pair of Grados, etc, would be better for general listening. My good speakers (Wilson) and my STAX headphones are TOOLS that I use, so that I can satisfy just about anybody with my designs, not just some people, who insist that the same thing can be done for just about any way that is convenient or lowest cost. I get plenty of feedback from my customers over the years, to keep me going in this direction.
Please, please, will someone make the virtually 'perfect' IC audio op amp, and save me time and money with my future designs?
Last edited:
No, never heard of them...might have gone out of my way if I had.
Some favorite Brisbane bands I did see were The Saints and Razar back in the day.
The Saints - Stranded
RAZAR task force 1978
This 5 part doco is worth watching - Brisbane Bands pt 1 (1988 music documentary)
This radio doco is worth listening to get an appreciation of the mood in Brisbane at the time...corrupt politicians, corrupt storm trooper cops etc - Matt Condon on the fall of 'The Joke'
Great times, great music, where did they go ?.
Dan.
Ok, I didn't realise that such composite amp is titchy, is that what you mean ?.
Dan.
Yes, anytime you put two op-amps in series and put feedback all the way around them there can be trouble.
With my testing using identical comparing but subjectively different sounding wav files, I have found that the system takes on a 'set' that is not always immediately evident and as such, is a confounder especially in ABX sessions.
This I expect is also the basis of the 'burn in' effect so often mentioned in reviews.
It's taken me only 40 years to work this one out. 😱
My system is very dynamic excess noise 'quiet' and because of this minor changes in source equipment, source cable or source program are easily discriminated, even to hearing the difference of the AM loop antenna being rotated 180*.
Dynamic excess noise obscures and confuses and is all too common in typical systems....takes me about five seconds to hear these faults in other systems because I know such difference which most listeners do not.
This accords with the ES Dac lecture that was linked to recently.
Sensible listeners/owners give sensible feedback, to be noted.
Multiple supply pins would be a start, and beefier higher bias output stage.
But that still ain't going to cut it, there are too many interactions according to the elements and conductors and encapsulation used.
My filters provide the solution, cherry picking particular components goes part way.
Dan.
Savants might be a curiosity, but not my interest. I suspect there multiple things going on with hearing and the testing of hearing. A few people here may have read Kahenman and Tversky. What they did was notice their own mental quirks, then devise experiments to see if they were common in other people. It worked quite well for them.
Where I am coming from on this is I have noticed how I hear the most subtle distortions, such as two most difficult wave file examples from Mooly's test. They were hard, very hard, but I believe I did detect a difference. What I guess I need to do there, or me and other people like me need to do, is devise a test that can measure the ability to notice what I noticed, while having the test stand up to scientific scrutiny. The memory of the difference between the two most difficult of Mooly's samples was very fleeting, but the memory that it was detected remains.
I will take a stab a making an analogy for readers, but like all analogies I'm sure it can be picked apart at some level. I will describe it only to give some idea of the auditory experience of hearing very small distortion, if anyone cares to try to understand it a little better.
Suppose you have two pieces of cloth, prints from different dye lots, but they are almost perfectly matched. Indoors the they appear identical, but in natural sunlight, you can see they are subtly different, but the difference is hard to describe. The colors are made up multiple dyes, and you may see some brown and red and some kind of off color yellow in one spot one print pattern. Maybe I can see that the other cloth is a little different if I quickly shift my eyes from from one cloth to the other or even better for visual purposes hold them up against each other. But if you put them away in box, and put out another cloth from one of the two dye lots, and ask me which lot, I might not be able to tell you.
Even looking at the two original cloths side by side, I could not exactly describe the colors to you verbally, I could only let you examine them in the sunlight and maybe you could see some difference for yourself. Then we would have some shared understanding of what we saw, but not through descriptions on an internet forum.
Again taking the two most difficult of Mooly's samples, could I tell them apart with ABX testing? I don't know. Maybe. The ABX system would need to be at least as good as my system in terms of reproducing small details, I would think. If I did try ABX testing and failed, like Kahnenam and Tversky, I would then be in a position of needing to devising a new test or experiment to show the effect I noticed in myself. I think I might be able to do that in a way that would be convincing to you, but I haven't done it yet. I would have to experiment, probably on myself first, then with a few others like me, to see if I can come up with one. In such an effort it would be nice to find one or more collaborators who hear like I do and who have sufficient scientific background to make some progress.
My guess is, with a better test, if it turns out a better test is needed, we would find that many more people can hear small distortions than we currently can demonstrate with scientific rigor.
So, I am interested in finding people who are even better than me at hearing small distortions, and people who are interested in figuring out better ways to capture the results of fleeting sensations of hard to describe experiences, and of subtle differences heard. That is, to devise better scientifically plausible tests for measuring ability to hear distortion.
Now, since you never heard for yourself what I am talking about, I'm not surprised to find you remain skeptical. More good evidence will be required before you will budge. Fine.
Unfortunately, if there are other people like me who can work on the problems I have briefly talked about, they have apparently not come across this thread in this forum. That may not be too surprising. Are there even 1000 people reading this thread? I doubt it. And of people who can, or could if trained, hear this stuff, how many have some kind of scientific or engineering training? Even a smaller percentage, right?
Just because I am maybe the only one here is not reason to conclude I am crazy. You don't really have enough data for that.
There is also the issue of social proof. A lot of people who may have the ability to hear small distortion may have suppressed any listening for it if they are audio engineers. Why? Because in their social and professional realm, smart people don't admit hearing what most of the group disbelieves and frowns very much upon.
At some point I have to end this post. I don't know if you get any of what I am talking about, and maybe you will reject it completely. If so, fine. I understand in my own way. Maybe this isn't the time or the place for some new scientific exploration in the area of hearing distortion. I won't blame you if it isn't your interest.
EDIT: I would add I understand all the issues I have talked about are further complicated by what as been described as audio engineering business practices in Asia, and by companies that do business with them. And further complicated by the most scientifically implausible claims in audiophile circles. Indeed, this is a very hard area in which to do serious work. I think we have some more work to do separate what is real from what imagined. Not too surprising really, the more we find out about how brains work. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I believe there is some signal amidst all the human issues noise.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.