Audio Religion Pt2
'Another reason for the relatively effortless rise of subjectivism is the 'me-too' effect; many people are reluctant to admit that they cannot detect acoustic subtleties as nobody wants to be labelled as insensitive, outmoded, or just plain deaf. It is also virtually impossible to absolutely disprove any claims, as the claimant can always retreat a fraction and say that there was something special about the combination of hardware in use during the disputed tests, or complain that the phenomena are too delicate for brutal logic to be used on them. In any case, most competent engineers with a taste for rationality probably have better things to do than dispute every comtroversial report. Under these conditions, vague claims tend, by a kind of intellectual inflation, to gradually become regarded as facts. Manufacturers have some incentive to support the Subjectivist camp as they can claim that only they understand a particular non-measurable effect, but this is no guarantee that the dice may not fall badly in a subjective review. '
This was taken from Doug Self's website and it sums up a lot regardless of whatever is thought of him or his designs .
It is plain and simple : use good engineering practice in the first place and leave the 'magic' for those who believe in it or Father Christmas , God or whatever .
ps This is probably the best thing Doug has ever stated
316a
'Another reason for the relatively effortless rise of subjectivism is the 'me-too' effect; many people are reluctant to admit that they cannot detect acoustic subtleties as nobody wants to be labelled as insensitive, outmoded, or just plain deaf. It is also virtually impossible to absolutely disprove any claims, as the claimant can always retreat a fraction and say that there was something special about the combination of hardware in use during the disputed tests, or complain that the phenomena are too delicate for brutal logic to be used on them. In any case, most competent engineers with a taste for rationality probably have better things to do than dispute every comtroversial report. Under these conditions, vague claims tend, by a kind of intellectual inflation, to gradually become regarded as facts. Manufacturers have some incentive to support the Subjectivist camp as they can claim that only they understand a particular non-measurable effect, but this is no guarantee that the dice may not fall badly in a subjective review. '
This was taken from Doug Self's website and it sums up a lot regardless of whatever is thought of him or his designs .
It is plain and simple : use good engineering practice in the first place and leave the 'magic' for those who believe in it or Father Christmas , God or whatever .
ps This is probably the best thing Doug has ever stated
316a
Bobken said:
"Seems to eliminate" these being your words of wisdom handed down on tablets of stone no doubt and based on no evidence at all, apart from your prejudice.
You have no knowledge whatever of my experience, so you are not in a position to pontificate about it
7N7
Re: Audio Religion Pt2
Hi,
This is such a typhical "Selfism".
This man is incorrigible.
I know only one or two supposed objectivists who are even better at ignoring facts than D. Self (namely Rod Elliot and Tom Nousaine).
Let's see.
Mr. Self measured material levels of distortion in Capacitors. He did not expect this and he did not like all the "subjectivists" telling him "different Capacitors sound different". Yet what was his esteemed conclusion after the fact of observing measurable differences between an Elna Cerafine capacitor and an BHC Aerovox long life electrolytic capacitor of equal value and voltage rating?
That the "subjectivists" still hear nothing, that there is no need for taking on board better quality parts costing more money, it is much more expedient to just use much larger value El-Cap's.
And he forgets totally to point out that the much larger Value El-Cap's now start to have their main resonance within the audio range and that they will cause the supply lines to become inductive at high audio frequencies with such large value capacitors (which may compromis amplifier stability). Or that, if used in the signal path MAY effect HF linearity, though in his amplifiers the effect is certainly swamped by the other distortions he, by using orthodox design, forces them to produce entierly unnneccesarily.
Further, D. Self observes that amplifier circuits using a LTP input(almost all monolithic Op-Amp's and virtually all Poweramp's do so) have common mode related distortion problems when used in non-inverting mode causing measurable and material levels of nonlinearity and thus raised distortion.
Does that incline Mr. Self to break with orthodoxy and use a different topology to avoid the problem? Of course not, silly me. The audible differences, despite measured proof for the eXistenZ of such are just figments of imagination. I'm relieved. I suppose I should get some ECT to cure me from my illusions.
In short, D. Self is the type of Ostrich who cannot see what he does not wish to see even when placed conveniently right in front of his eyes. This is indeed SUBJECTIVISM of the RANKEST kind, namely one that denies ANY evidence that may presented WHATSOEVER and continues to desperately and fanatically cling to clearly outmoded views of what he considers absolute reality (yup, in the Kantean sense too).
Moreover, in Mr. Self there is a vocal "Evangelist" who wishes to ram down his viewpoint everyone’s throat and who is highly intolerant of opposing views and even in public exchanges about such (Wireless world letter pages) barely civil with people opposing his pontifications even or rather especially if they dare to try to present hard data for their views.
I have severe Problems to see Mr. Self and others of his ilk as anything but narrow-minded religious fanatics (in the sense of the clinical psychology definition of the term) who actively oppose any reasonable attempt to use the scientific method to explain the clearly observable and observed discrepanmcies between observed reality and their own orthodox views.
Instead they prefer to scorn and ridicule anyone who is at least willing to investigate. Thus comments from them at the best make laugh. To quote such poopenkaake in any serious discussion shows quite possibly a similar mindset on behalve of the people doing the quoting (this being my charitable view - the other is an agent provocateur), in which case such an approach begs the question as to why they still participate in discussions?
If you follow any of Selfs tripe you know that it is already established that "all knowable is known" where audio is concerned and that "nothing can do anything, except in the established bounds of convention" where audio is concerned. And thus there is no need for any discussion and in fact there can be non as such a (Self'ish) viewpoint precludes modification of the viewpoint entierly and absolutely.
Sayonara
PS, do not anyone quote Self's or Nousaines so called DBT/ABX tests, at least not until such a time at which you understand why these tests have absolutely NO statistical power whatsoever and why in the majority (if not in all cases) the test setup seeking for audibility of one thing was informed by assumptions and previous test results of the audibility of other things.
Assumptions based on previous heavily flawed testing such as "all CD-Players sound the same, so why bother selecting and using a high quality CD-Player", "all amplifiers of identical specification sound the same, so why bother with anything other than to select a low distortion, high power SS Amp".
Or how about “Only frequency response changes in speakers are audible, so why bother to select anything but a speaker with a flat anechonic on axis response", and deliberately or incidentally select a set of speakers which will by design be VERY HIGH in distortion and compression as well as having a severely non-flat off axis response causing many sonic problems in the not "acoustic non-environment" rooms these speakers are operated.
The case examples I'd cite are the AR3 used in many of the earlier ABX tests published and which is known for a very low efficiency and > 40% Distortion near full rated power, as well as the used of small Paradigm (IIRC) 2-Ways in more recent tests, chosen according TN for their "flat measured response" (not flat in an aechonic chamber - NOT flat in room).
For short, in many cases either by deliberation or severe pigheadedness the experimenters choose setups and methods that ensure to disallow ANY of their results for serious consideration on the grounds of severely flawed statistical methodology, fundamentally "unsound" setups for establishing relatively small sonic differences, never mind the creation of "high psychological pressure" environment throughout their tests.
BTW, the comments above in quotes where paraphrased from purported ABX Tests published by TN in “Audio”.
Hi,
This is such a typhical "Selfism".
This man is incorrigible.
I know only one or two supposed objectivists who are even better at ignoring facts than D. Self (namely Rod Elliot and Tom Nousaine).
Let's see.
Mr. Self measured material levels of distortion in Capacitors. He did not expect this and he did not like all the "subjectivists" telling him "different Capacitors sound different". Yet what was his esteemed conclusion after the fact of observing measurable differences between an Elna Cerafine capacitor and an BHC Aerovox long life electrolytic capacitor of equal value and voltage rating?
That the "subjectivists" still hear nothing, that there is no need for taking on board better quality parts costing more money, it is much more expedient to just use much larger value El-Cap's.
And he forgets totally to point out that the much larger Value El-Cap's now start to have their main resonance within the audio range and that they will cause the supply lines to become inductive at high audio frequencies with such large value capacitors (which may compromis amplifier stability). Or that, if used in the signal path MAY effect HF linearity, though in his amplifiers the effect is certainly swamped by the other distortions he, by using orthodox design, forces them to produce entierly unnneccesarily.
Further, D. Self observes that amplifier circuits using a LTP input(almost all monolithic Op-Amp's and virtually all Poweramp's do so) have common mode related distortion problems when used in non-inverting mode causing measurable and material levels of nonlinearity and thus raised distortion.
Does that incline Mr. Self to break with orthodoxy and use a different topology to avoid the problem? Of course not, silly me. The audible differences, despite measured proof for the eXistenZ of such are just figments of imagination. I'm relieved. I suppose I should get some ECT to cure me from my illusions.
In short, D. Self is the type of Ostrich who cannot see what he does not wish to see even when placed conveniently right in front of his eyes. This is indeed SUBJECTIVISM of the RANKEST kind, namely one that denies ANY evidence that may presented WHATSOEVER and continues to desperately and fanatically cling to clearly outmoded views of what he considers absolute reality (yup, in the Kantean sense too).
Moreover, in Mr. Self there is a vocal "Evangelist" who wishes to ram down his viewpoint everyone’s throat and who is highly intolerant of opposing views and even in public exchanges about such (Wireless world letter pages) barely civil with people opposing his pontifications even or rather especially if they dare to try to present hard data for their views.
I have severe Problems to see Mr. Self and others of his ilk as anything but narrow-minded religious fanatics (in the sense of the clinical psychology definition of the term) who actively oppose any reasonable attempt to use the scientific method to explain the clearly observable and observed discrepanmcies between observed reality and their own orthodox views.
Instead they prefer to scorn and ridicule anyone who is at least willing to investigate. Thus comments from them at the best make laugh. To quote such poopenkaake in any serious discussion shows quite possibly a similar mindset on behalve of the people doing the quoting (this being my charitable view - the other is an agent provocateur), in which case such an approach begs the question as to why they still participate in discussions?
If you follow any of Selfs tripe you know that it is already established that "all knowable is known" where audio is concerned and that "nothing can do anything, except in the established bounds of convention" where audio is concerned. And thus there is no need for any discussion and in fact there can be non as such a (Self'ish) viewpoint precludes modification of the viewpoint entierly and absolutely.
Sayonara
PS, do not anyone quote Self's or Nousaines so called DBT/ABX tests, at least not until such a time at which you understand why these tests have absolutely NO statistical power whatsoever and why in the majority (if not in all cases) the test setup seeking for audibility of one thing was informed by assumptions and previous test results of the audibility of other things.
Assumptions based on previous heavily flawed testing such as "all CD-Players sound the same, so why bother selecting and using a high quality CD-Player", "all amplifiers of identical specification sound the same, so why bother with anything other than to select a low distortion, high power SS Amp".
Or how about “Only frequency response changes in speakers are audible, so why bother to select anything but a speaker with a flat anechonic on axis response", and deliberately or incidentally select a set of speakers which will by design be VERY HIGH in distortion and compression as well as having a severely non-flat off axis response causing many sonic problems in the not "acoustic non-environment" rooms these speakers are operated.
The case examples I'd cite are the AR3 used in many of the earlier ABX tests published and which is known for a very low efficiency and > 40% Distortion near full rated power, as well as the used of small Paradigm (IIRC) 2-Ways in more recent tests, chosen according TN for their "flat measured response" (not flat in an aechonic chamber - NOT flat in room).
For short, in many cases either by deliberation or severe pigheadedness the experimenters choose setups and methods that ensure to disallow ANY of their results for serious consideration on the grounds of severely flawed statistical methodology, fundamentally "unsound" setups for establishing relatively small sonic differences, never mind the creation of "high psychological pressure" environment throughout their tests.
BTW, the comments above in quotes where paraphrased from purported ABX Tests published by TN in “Audio”.
Hi 7N7,
I am glad to see I am at last teaching you some manners, and at least one new word of over 3 syllables, it is a most welcome improvement!
I *do* "have knowledge" of what you say in your posts, or are you now going to change your mind over what you earlier posted, and my subsequent comments to you related to precisely those.
"Theres nothing wrong with differential pairs.... the last one I tested was matched to 0.25dB AC output......if yours are not matched then you are not making them properly"
These all indicate to me that you are simply 'way behind' in the matter of the distortion in LTPs which I highlighted earlier.
At the time I reached the earlier conclusions regarding the 'sonic' difference which I clearly observed when connecting both the inputs and the feedback to the same point in LTPs, I was using monolithic dual types of transistor, which are not only exceedingly well-matched (like yours, but not only 'nominally' at some *arbitrary* current gain), but entirely because of the monolithic construction, my choice will remain 'well-matched' also throughout their normal operating range, which is more than can be said about *any* discrete pair I have ever tried!
Exactly the same effects were obvious with both the (preferred) epitaxial Toshiba 2SC3381s and 2SA1349s, and the alternative Fet 2SK389s and 2SJ109s, all of which are extremely low noise audio devices.
When you also learn to stop tripping over your obvious bigotry and catch up, it might even become an interesting discussion!
Regards,🙂
I am glad to see I am at last teaching you some manners, and at least one new word of over 3 syllables, it is a most welcome improvement!
I *do* "have knowledge" of what you say in your posts, or are you now going to change your mind over what you earlier posted, and my subsequent comments to you related to precisely those.
"Theres nothing wrong with differential pairs.... the last one I tested was matched to 0.25dB AC output......if yours are not matched then you are not making them properly"
These all indicate to me that you are simply 'way behind' in the matter of the distortion in LTPs which I highlighted earlier.
At the time I reached the earlier conclusions regarding the 'sonic' difference which I clearly observed when connecting both the inputs and the feedback to the same point in LTPs, I was using monolithic dual types of transistor, which are not only exceedingly well-matched (like yours, but not only 'nominally' at some *arbitrary* current gain), but entirely because of the monolithic construction, my choice will remain 'well-matched' also throughout their normal operating range, which is more than can be said about *any* discrete pair I have ever tried!
Exactly the same effects were obvious with both the (preferred) epitaxial Toshiba 2SC3381s and 2SA1349s, and the alternative Fet 2SK389s and 2SJ109s, all of which are extremely low noise audio devices.
When you also learn to stop tripping over your obvious bigotry and catch up, it might even become an interesting discussion!
Regards,🙂
Bobken said:Hi 7N7,
I am glad to see I am at last teaching you some manners, and at least one new word of over 3 syllables, it is a most welcome improvement!
I *do* "have knowledge" of what you say in your posts, or are you now going to change your mind over what you earlier posted, and my subsequent comments to you related to precisely those.
"Theres nothing wrong with differential pairs.... the last one I tested was matched to 0.25dB AC output......if yours are not matched then you are not making them properly"
These all indicate to me that you are simply 'way behind' in the matter of the distortion in LTPs which I highlighted earlier.
At the time I reached the earlier conclusions regarding the 'sonic' difference which I clearly observed when connecting both the inputs and the feedback to the same point in LTPs, I was using monolithic dual types of transistor, which are not only exceedingly well-matched (like yours, but not only 'nominally' at some *arbitrary* current gain), but entirely because of the monolithic construction, my choice will remain 'well-matched' also throughout their normal operating range, which is more than can be said about *any* discrete pair I have ever tried!
Exactly the same effects were obvious with both the (preferred) epitaxial Toshiba 2SC3381s and 2SA1349s, and the alternative Fet 2SK389s and 2SJ109s, all of which are extremely low noise audio devices.
When you also learn to stop tripping over your obvious bigotry and catch up, it might even become an interesting discussion!
Regards,🙂
As far as tuition is concerned, I may have learned something: how to practise patronising rudeness.
As for differential pairs, as a matter of fact, I have spent the last few months testing individual valves for distortion.
Since I use differential pairs exclusively, I have tested a number of these types configured as differential pairs; the distortion results are entirely satisfactory.
I am pleased to report that the audible results are also very good.
7N7
7N7 said:
Hi 7N7,
With respect, it was you who originally 'threw down the gauntlet' with such an ill-mannered outburst, and not for the first time in this thread either, but it seems that you don't care for having a dose of your own medicine!
Perhaps the fact that I didn't adopt the same tactics as you did but instead chose to handle the matter in a more subtle manner, indicates that (not only are my audio experiences rather ahead of yours) but that I have also learned how to conduct myself better, too.
I don't understand precisely what is meant by "the distortion results are entirely satisfactory" and " the audible results are also very good" as it depends entirely upon *your* standards which you have shown (by your general comments) to be very different from mine.
What must be faintly amusing to any observant and thinking person, however, is that you have rather shot yourself in the foot here by resorting to the very same 'subjectivism' which you seem to abhor, without even realising it!
Haven't you dug yourself a big enough hole already?
Anyway, to show that there are no hard feelings on my part, I will predict that if you ever think of trying out my original suggestion of taking both the input and feedback to the same side of *any* LTP, you will experience a worthwhile reduction in the distortion, compared with any similar circuit using the conventional method of separating these two.
Again on the subject of "interesting discussions", I would find it very interesting if anyone who has also measured such distortions, were to come forward and say that his 'measured' results were the opposite from mine. 😱
Regards,🙂
Re: Audio Religion
Hi,
That's a very easy one to answer!
We open-minded experimenters are so far ahead with our sonic development that we can easily afford to take such long breaks, as it will still be many years (if ever!) before the bigots catch up.
Regards,
316a said:
Hi,
That's a very easy one to answer!
We open-minded experimenters are so far ahead with our sonic development that we can easily afford to take such long breaks, as it will still be many years (if ever!) before the bigots catch up.
Regards,
Re:Re: Audio Religion
Hi,
While I subscribe to that thought I must say that I've learned a few new tweaks for the passed months that I wasn't aware off.
Naturally one has to be willing to give them a try...a lot of people prefer to dismiss at first sight though.
I feel sorry for them but ultimately it is their loss not mine.
Why they need to be so vocal about their ignorance isn't quite clear to me.🙄
Cheers,😉
Hi,
While I subscribe to that thought I must say that I've learned a few new tweaks for the passed months that I wasn't aware off.
Naturally one has to be willing to give them a try...a lot of people prefer to dismiss at first sight though.
I feel sorry for them but ultimately it is their loss not mine.
Why they need to be so vocal about their ignorance isn't quite clear to me.🙄
Cheers,😉
Re: ENJOY WHILE YOU CAN.
It's a fact that diy-ers, like any other group of people, can very nicely be boxed into a particular category of personality. That's probably the obsessive compulsive one or some other type of antisocial personality (prozac may help here), fortunately there are degrees to all things. 😉
As far as sound I would really like to listen to these highly refined systems, to get an idea of where I am standing. Maybe there is a world out there that I am completely unaware of. I have been to many audio shows, systems do sound really good until you hit the next better sounding one, but sources are different and most importantly software is different. Since I have started playing my new amp I have had to re-evaluate the quality of CD's. I used to think some of the stuff I had was very well recorded and some was not. Now the material that used to be more textured and pleasant to listen to sounds completely unbalanced on the other hand I am discovering textures and unheard of details in some of my old CD that sounded flat and uninspired before.
Bobken said:
fdegrove said:
It's a fact that diy-ers, like any other group of people, can very nicely be boxed into a particular category of personality. That's probably the obsessive compulsive one or some other type of antisocial personality (prozac may help here), fortunately there are degrees to all things. 😉
As far as sound I would really like to listen to these highly refined systems, to get an idea of where I am standing. Maybe there is a world out there that I am completely unaware of. I have been to many audio shows, systems do sound really good until you hit the next better sounding one, but sources are different and most importantly software is different. Since I have started playing my new amp I have had to re-evaluate the quality of CD's. I used to think some of the stuff I had was very well recorded and some was not. Now the material that used to be more textured and pleasant to listen to sounds completely unbalanced on the other hand I am discovering textures and unheard of details in some of my old CD that sounded flat and uninspired before.
My only problem with this thread, (personal, not as a Mod), is that you're all discussing a commercial product.
Surely on a DIY board, the topic should be "how does this stuff work", and "can we make something similar for ourselves for less money"?
😉
Surely on a DIY board, the topic should be "how does this stuff work", and "can we make something similar for ourselves for less money"?
😉
pinkmouse said:
😎 😉 🙂
Hmmm...being the cheapass I am..
I'd probably use store-brand polyurethane and some black junk or dark wood stain, to get it the same color. 🙂 Or get some black nail polish, but that's too simple 😉Tim
DEFORMULATION.
Hi,
PM,since Mr.Altman is a member and he kindly offered a sample to Bobken for him to try out, I would find it unfair to him to try to deformulate his product.
If people come up with thoughts as to the how and why this type of product would work however, I'd surely welcome that.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
PM,since Mr.Altman is a member and he kindly offered a sample to Bobken for him to try out, I would find it unfair to him to try to deformulate his product.
If people come up with thoughts as to the how and why this type of product would work however, I'd surely welcome that.
Cheers,😉
Black nail polish!!
Hi Tim!!!
It seems a good idea!!! 😎
But for you have comercial sucess you need to convince some of yours friends sweare that it realy works!!!after that is a snow ball ( a friend bring a friend)...and business is goig on...
I'm atonish that in the XXI century (when man can walk on the moon) the story of the " emporor new clothes" can be alive and kiking!
So Tim if you wants a partner in this businnes...i'm with you!!😉
regards!
Jorge santos
PS. i think that the formula of that magic potion is the same that makes Asterix invencible!!
Hi Tim!!!
It seems a good idea!!! 😎
But for you have comercial sucess you need to convince some of yours friends sweare that it realy works!!!after that is a snow ball ( a friend bring a friend)...and business is goig on...
I'm atonish that in the XXI century (when man can walk on the moon) the story of the " emporor new clothes" can be alive and kiking!
So Tim if you wants a partner in this businnes...i'm with you!!😉
regards!
Jorge santos
PS. i think that the formula of that magic potion is the same that makes Asterix invencible!!
Sch3mat1c said:...being the cheapass I am..
Tim,
YOU'D GO TO A STORE!!?!!
I don't think you're getting the spirit of this thing at all.
We start with a tree and ask for suggestions on how to make an axe.
Steve
PS: Has anyone got a good source of sand, my PC needs replacing.
Re: DEFORMULATION.
I was never suggesting that we sent it straight off to a lab and had it tested, ( although I dare say you have opened up one or too commercial products in your time for ideas, I know I have).😉
That's more along the lines I was thinking! What properties would we need in a material to replicate these effects?
fdegrove said:
I was never suggesting that we sent it straight off to a lab and had it tested, ( although I dare say you have opened up one or too commercial products in your time for ideas, I know I have).😉
That's more along the lines I was thinking! What properties would we need in a material to replicate these effects?
7V said:
Ah, yes, that's true. But alas, laziness takes over at that point 😀
Tim (I can tell you how to make a steel axe head from trees and ore, but it ain't pretty 😉 )
My first guess would be "imagination."
I see nothing wrong with deformulation, which is why I've offered to do it. If this material is such a miracle and can cause the *objectively measurable* changes claimed on their website (conveniently, no data or details given), don't you think that every chip maker (and knob maker!) has bought a sample and run it through analysis already? And if indeed it's snake oil, don't we deserve to be able to determine that? That's DIY at its best.
Honest people selling honest products have nothing to fear from exposure. I've certainly had my own products analyzed and tested over and over and have no worry about others doing that.
EDIT: I notice also that, at their website, these folks say that they don't know how the material works and invite people to give them an idea. How better to determine the mechanism of this marvelous substance than to have this group of smart folks go at it, knowing how it's put together! And what an opportunity to advance the state of the art, since there are people here with real materials expertise who may be able to improve the product!
If there are commercial worries, no doubt these nice folks have a patent application in place. Don't they?
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE...
Hi,
Absolutely...my first thoughts would go to neutralise any static charges on the plastic top of semiconductors.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Absolutely...my first thoughts would go to neutralise any static charges on the plastic top of semiconductors.
Cheers,😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.