I think you're right about the question of storage - does it work better or worse depending on associative variables. I'm proposing we ask what is being put into memory, in association with our auditory experiences, and whether or not they allow us to discern differences that we cannot organize or "file" in memory otherwise (typically or effectively).
While I've been a big proponent of long term listening, it hasn't been rejected as a good way to experiment because the ability to run it effectively without problems is, well, daunting. When I thought about possible experiments, I wanted it to be useful for those that prefer more controlled settings since long term ones just bring debate. We may as well learn about mechanisms, as opposed to inspire debate, is another way to put it.
So for now my anecdotes about long term listening will just remain tools for me tuning gear.
Last edited:
> To be be fair the next generation of processes get nearly the same performance without much help.
How do new processes bring about performance improvements ?
Patrick
How do new processes bring about performance improvements ?
Patrick
My opinion (everybody is free to feel differently ;-) about blind tests is:
When it is about sounds, contrary to the visual, you cannot stop them to analyse. When you recognize a sound, it's already gone. So all our sound ratings are based on our memory.
We don't have the same. Some have better short term memory, some long term, some need only one pass, others many ...Some have better visual memory, others need to close their eyes to focus... Some...
The second thing is our 'culture' play an important role in sound evaluation and recognition. (Known face in a cround). We don't have the same musical culture. Some listen music in a vertical way, others horizontal, some jusps from the one to the others continuously.
Whe dont have the same resistance to fatigue. And listening test can be very tiring.
It seems essential, for me, that any listening test is organized in such a way that the tester is in the best conditions for him.
To offer him a way to visualize what is A and what is B (without knowing who is who, of course), to let him free to switch when he want.
To offer the sources he like for the test. Even his own sources. And what he prefer: samples he can edit in order to listen in music in its continuity, or to compare the same short samples. This require a music editor or a Sampler.
As all this is very complicated and heavy, it seems obvious to me, when I design and need to choose between two solutions, that I don't need all this ceremonial. Just to have learned how not to fool myself and be as objective as possible. And, anyway, it is my way: I don't have to justify: customers will make their own opinion, listening to my product at the end.
And, if it is DIY, it is just MY pleasure. See what I mean ?
When it is about sounds, contrary to the visual, you cannot stop them to analyse. When you recognize a sound, it's already gone. So all our sound ratings are based on our memory.
We don't have the same. Some have better short term memory, some long term, some need only one pass, others many ...Some have better visual memory, others need to close their eyes to focus... Some...
The second thing is our 'culture' play an important role in sound evaluation and recognition. (Known face in a cround). We don't have the same musical culture. Some listen music in a vertical way, others horizontal, some jusps from the one to the others continuously.
Whe dont have the same resistance to fatigue. And listening test can be very tiring.
It seems essential, for me, that any listening test is organized in such a way that the tester is in the best conditions for him.
To offer him a way to visualize what is A and what is B (without knowing who is who, of course), to let him free to switch when he want.
To offer the sources he like for the test. Even his own sources. And what he prefer: samples he can edit in order to listen in music in its continuity, or to compare the same short samples. This require a music editor or a Sampler.
As all this is very complicated and heavy, it seems obvious to me, when I design and need to choose between two solutions, that I don't need all this ceremonial. Just to have learned how not to fool myself and be as objective as possible. And, anyway, it is my way: I don't have to justify: customers will make their own opinion, listening to my product at the end.
And, if it is DIY, it is just MY pleasure. See what I mean ?
Last edited:
So many arguments here center around the concept that ones senses can be fooled.
Yes sure they can, but not completely, and not all of the time, and not of all peoples.
By self repetition of AB experiments one can/will learn to lose all notions of expectation bias and get on with the job of sensibly differentiating A and B....the ultimate differentiation and preference may not be immediate and require longer term listening to discern (minor) objectionable faults and strengths.
Dan.
Last edited:
I had a fun few hours this afternoon at a Pro Lighting/Pro Audio trade show this afternoon.
Not a huge deal but a bunch of Australian distributors exhibited their wares and products, industry people get to meet and form associations....all good.
I got a brief listen to Danley SM50F M/H and TH-118 lows.....JC please tell T.D. that yes they are are outstandingly good, (MH-minor vocals bark, SUB-upper bass little hang on, elsewise goes fatley low with great sense of power and clean) even better with my tweaking.
Other industry reps got to hear my filters and indicated preference, interesting meeting coming Monday.
Dan.
Not a huge deal but a bunch of Australian distributors exhibited their wares and products, industry people get to meet and form associations....all good.
I got a brief listen to Danley SM50F M/H and TH-118 lows.....JC please tell T.D. that yes they are are outstandingly good, (MH-minor vocals bark, SUB-upper bass little hang on, elsewise goes fatley low with great sense of power and clean) even better with my tweaking.
Other industry reps got to hear my filters and indicated preference, interesting meeting coming Monday.
Dan.
Last edited:
Without copying jakob2's post, I think he covers what I wanted to write.
And, yes, I think it's important to describe how to get a person to the moon in the simplest language first. Since, as can be seen, we'll get 100 different views and interpretations before settling on a basic premise. And obviously for diy one can do whatever testing one feels like, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's translatable to anyone else. And definitely doesn't help with limits of detection stuff.
And to reiterate, my over the top sarcasm was in reply to completely misreading (and not following) destroyers first post as "listen, you idiots", which wasn't the case.
And, yes, I think it's important to describe how to get a person to the moon in the simplest language first. Since, as can be seen, we'll get 100 different views and interpretations before settling on a basic premise. And obviously for diy one can do whatever testing one feels like, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's translatable to anyone else. And definitely doesn't help with limits of detection stuff.
And to reiterate, my over the top sarcasm was in reply to completely misreading (and not following) destroyers first post as "listen, you idiots", which wasn't the case.
Sorry, As I read you, It seems obvious that have no idea about "perception".
Your white knight world of the scientifically correct is wonderful, where everything is white or black.
Mine, is, may-be, a little more nuanced.
Also, I will allow myself to rewrite your statement: "Which, as most people who understand perception know, will not work everytime, of course".
May-be you could think, as an example, about a formula one pilot. His perception make the difference, and, if it does not work (fooling himself) his life is in danger. With years and expérience, they all had learned to reduce their mistakes.
Ahh yes, but the F1 pilot operates in a closed loop system with lots of feedback. His body senses the acceleration, his eyes see the direction, etc.
When you listen to your amp and decide whether it sounds different than your other amp because you changed a blue cap for a red cap, you are operating open loop without reference so there is no way for you to know whether your conclusion is correct. Except of course in a DBT where the results afterward give you an objective reference.
BTW You can rewrite my statement but then it no longer is my statement of course; it is now your statement. And I don't agree with it ;-).
Jan
People who have learnt how not to be fooled by stimuli which fool the rest of us are in a very comfortable place. Any situation which appears to demonstrate that they have been fooled can be dismissed as being an artificial situation, or having statistics which do not prove anything but merely fail to prove the opposite. Their perception is always right, even when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of others that they were wrong. When challenged they can always think of an irrelevant counter-argument. It must be nice to be so comfortable.
I often see a certain pattern. People start to say that 'this is just my personal opinion', which of course is fine. But then they often try to elevate it, maybe subconsciously, to some kind of universal truth or objectivity or fact.
It seems that it is very uncomfortable, or unsatisfying, to have a personal opinion that is not considered to have some kind of 'truth' value if you know what I mean.
Jan
It seems that it is very uncomfortable, or unsatisfying, to have a personal opinion that is not considered to have some kind of 'truth' value if you know what I mean.
Jan
By the way, if I may be a bit off-topic, how about this construction guide:
Instructions:
Product are modified wave inverter charge sine wave inverter, can make modified wave inverter 3000W, etc ..., as modified pure sine wave inverter. First, remove the power tube after correction inverter, and then look at the correction inverter have how many transformers, look at the transformer secondary circuit is connected in parallel or in series, and then add the transformer parameters, modified wave transformer secondary is parallel , In each transformer secondary plus 16 laps. The secondary of the modified transformer is a series type, plus 8 laps per transformer secondary. Then in the correction transformer which transformer one empty foot plus a small voltage parameter, the small voltage parameters using 0.6 copper wire, in the transformer inside around: 5 laps, the small voltage is linked AC: 16V position. (Note: Do not open the magnetic ring when the add transformer with the parameters) After the addition of transformer parameters, we must correct the modified wave inverter high voltage capacitors in exchange for 220UF / 450V, Remember: modified wave inverter high-voltage capacitor has a positive feedback Resistance, the resistance is a few hundred K, but also need to change a large resistance, or the voltage will not rise. After testing the voltage of high-voltage capacitor (positive/negative) voltage is DC380V, the test voltage is normal, the use of cable to the sine wave after the board, after the board output voltage: AC220V / 50HZ, the output waveform: pure sine wave.
I especially like the 'one empty foot plus a small voltage parameter'. 😎
I am not making fun of these guys, rather am mindful how difficult product marketing is when you have to totally rely on Google Translate...
Jan
Instructions:
Product are modified wave inverter charge sine wave inverter, can make modified wave inverter 3000W, etc ..., as modified pure sine wave inverter. First, remove the power tube after correction inverter, and then look at the correction inverter have how many transformers, look at the transformer secondary circuit is connected in parallel or in series, and then add the transformer parameters, modified wave transformer secondary is parallel , In each transformer secondary plus 16 laps. The secondary of the modified transformer is a series type, plus 8 laps per transformer secondary. Then in the correction transformer which transformer one empty foot plus a small voltage parameter, the small voltage parameters using 0.6 copper wire, in the transformer inside around: 5 laps, the small voltage is linked AC: 16V position. (Note: Do not open the magnetic ring when the add transformer with the parameters) After the addition of transformer parameters, we must correct the modified wave inverter high voltage capacitors in exchange for 220UF / 450V, Remember: modified wave inverter high-voltage capacitor has a positive feedback Resistance, the resistance is a few hundred K, but also need to change a large resistance, or the voltage will not rise. After testing the voltage of high-voltage capacitor (positive/negative) voltage is DC380V, the test voltage is normal, the use of cable to the sine wave after the board, after the board output voltage: AC220V / 50HZ, the output waveform: pure sine wave.
I especially like the 'one empty foot plus a small voltage parameter'. 😎
I am not making fun of these guys, rather am mindful how difficult product marketing is when you have to totally rely on Google Translate...
Jan
Last edited:
Which is an interesting point of view.
As we know it is as easy to fool oneself in a controlled, blind listening experiment as it is in a controlled, sighted listening experiment.
And experimenters are prone to fooling themselves as well. If we all were basically unable to learn how to control bias effects (at least up to a certain degree) we weren´t able to do reasonable experiments.
You simply can´t control everything to the max......
It's fun having the analogy, but the reason F1 drivers are better than the rest of us has way less to do with reactions (feedback) than a sophisticated feedforward mechanism. There's been plenty of tests that show many/most drivers don't have catlike reflexes (although they obviously know what to do to react) but rather see things coming long before the rest of us do.
Fun aside, don't take anything else from it.
Thank you. This WSH111 was from Tesla (CZ) hybrid circuit production line, which was quite interesting, considering the situation and resources here in the seventies. It was not easily available, but possible, for special industrial and military designs. Far exceeding parameters of usual parts of those days, here. The man who has done a lot in that hybrid circuit design was Jiri Dostal, maybe you know his book on Operational Amplifiers
Operational Amplifiers, Second Edition (EDN Series for Design Engineers): Jiri Dostal: 9780750693172: Amazon.com: Books
Operational Amplifiers by Jiri Dostal
Another interesting with similar specs as WSH111 was fully discrete WSH115, please see attached.
Attachments
No reference ?
40 years both in recording studios and R&d offices ?
What do you imagine, when a sound engineer is mixing a tune, that he makes a blind test at each modification of the original sound of each instrument ?
That Rupert Neve was on the way to decide of the components and topologies he will use for his future mixing desk, that he makes blind tests at each step ?
You had read my reference to a car race driver, just trying to contradict, because it did not go in the direction you want.
You did not tried to understand what I was trying to say.
No, a race car driver is not in closed loop. No driver knows the grip of each centimeter of the circuit, and all conditions (motors, tires, the track, atmospheric conditions.) change at each moment. He use his senses to figure out where is the limit at each instant. And, while they all are near the limit, many of them turn in the same seconds. And, till now, no computer, no measuring instrument is able to do so well.
Jan, when will the day come when you will admit that there are different ways to reach a good result in HIFI, and that you cannot take your own point of view for an universal reference?
That no one has invested you with the mission of preaching the good word and that you have the right to *respect* different points of view that differ from yours as long as they do not contradict well established laws of physic?
Hifi is not only electronic. It is something more subtle. I am not trying to reproduce a signal: I try to reproduce musical instruments, and to make believe, across absolutely not hifi speakers, that those instruments are in my listening room. it seems you are more interested in designing measuring instruments.
Between the guy witch relies only on his measuring instruments, and the and the deaf / snob that listen to snake oil sellers, there is room for people that have both taste and scientific rigor spread harmoniously to various degrees.
Last edited:
Tryphon, aren't you complaining about someone's ostensible black and white views by painting them into a corner rather than a more charitable view? I'm not the only one who finds irony here am I?
Would you assert that Rupert Neve's design was *optimal*? I'd hope not, although I hope (and believe) it does what it's supposed to do.
Hifi is totally electronic! How can it be anything but?! You can't force the electrons in your playback gear to follow your emotions. What you do with whatever system of design is up to you, and how you feel about the music is whatsoever you like, but what you design is an electronic device. Now if you mean that you want to have a characteristic effect that pleases you, by all means.
Would you assert that Rupert Neve's design was *optimal*? I'd hope not, although I hope (and believe) it does what it's supposed to do.
Hifi is totally electronic! How can it be anything but?! You can't force the electrons in your playback gear to follow your emotions. What you do with whatever system of design is up to you, and how you feel about the music is whatsoever you like, but what you design is an electronic device. Now if you mean that you want to have a characteristic effect that pleases you, by all means.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.