The "Scientific" method
Guys -
Isn't this whole thread merely indicative of the fact that there are two distinct camps here, one of which allows for the possibility that seemingly unlikely things can make a difference in sound reproduction through an audio system, and one of which that has decided, a priori, that those things can't make a difference?
The latter group wishes to wrap itself in the flag of science, but, I ask you, is that the scientific method? - Pat
Guys -
Isn't this whole thread merely indicative of the fact that there are two distinct camps here, one of which allows for the possibility that seemingly unlikely things can make a difference in sound reproduction through an audio system, and one of which that has decided, a priori, that those things can't make a difference?
The latter group wishes to wrap itself in the flag of science, but, I ask you, is that the scientific method? - Pat
No, not even vaguely. That's a rather inaccurate way of characterizing rationalists/skeptics. We (and I include myself in that number) absolutely entertain and even hope for "the possibility that seemingly unlikely things can make a difference in sound reproduction through an audio system." We dismiss a priori products and companies making claims with a price tag that have no plausible explanation and are offered with no valid supporting data, objective or subjective. Anyone with a rational point of view is ready to modify his beliefs when presented with actual evidence.
The two points of view are absolutely not mutually exclusive.
The other point of view
Indeed they are not.
I am perfectly prepared to believe that anything in a given circuit can make a difference.
However for me, the differences under discussion are of no interest, for the simple reason that I cannot hear them and personally I doubt if most people really can - psycho-acoustics is another matter entirely of course.
Now my ears are not my fault; an example: I am curently monitoring the performance of the "Instock" project amplifier (the story is on another thread).
The day before yesterday, I replaced the 13D3 input valve with a 12AY7 - I had been conducting distortion tests on 12AY7s which looked quite good and I realised that the operating point was that of the input stage of the "Instock".
I am not sure if there is a difference; I am perfectly happy with either valve. There is a difference in gain - A= 30 with 13D3 and 38 with 12AY7 - but I do not even notice that!
Now, if I am not able to be certain that changing to an entirely different valve has changed the sound, there is no way I am going to spend upwards of £2 on a resistor.
I think the best way to spend money is to put the cash towards better output transformers; now I can hear (and have heard) the effect of these!
7N7
SY said:
Indeed they are not.
I am perfectly prepared to believe that anything in a given circuit can make a difference.
However for me, the differences under discussion are of no interest, for the simple reason that I cannot hear them and personally I doubt if most people really can - psycho-acoustics is another matter entirely of course.
Now my ears are not my fault; an example: I am curently monitoring the performance of the "Instock" project amplifier (the story is on another thread).
The day before yesterday, I replaced the 13D3 input valve with a 12AY7 - I had been conducting distortion tests on 12AY7s which looked quite good and I realised that the operating point was that of the input stage of the "Instock".
I am not sure if there is a difference; I am perfectly happy with either valve. There is a difference in gain - A= 30 with 13D3 and 38 with 12AY7 - but I do not even notice that!
Now, if I am not able to be certain that changing to an entirely different valve has changed the sound, there is no way I am going to spend upwards of £2 on a resistor.
I think the best way to spend money is to put the cash towards better output transformers; now I can hear (and have heard) the effect of these!
7N7
GOING UP.
Hi,
And now that this is done you may save up to get better caps, have a look at the PSU...funds permitting you could even consider rewiring the signal path with some silver wire too.
All that presuming you consider the circuit worthy of all this of course.
Naturally the law of diminishing returns will stare you in the face by now.
Cheers,
Hi,
And now that this is done you may save up to get better caps, have a look at the PSU...funds permitting you could even consider rewiring the signal path with some silver wire too.
All that presuming you consider the circuit worthy of all this of course.
Naturally the law of diminishing returns will stare you in the face by now.
Cheers,
...mind what your listening to....
7N7 said
Actually Psycho-acoustics is not a different subject it is the entire subject...
It is not possible to talk about the ear/brain system that is hearing without taking into account 'us' that is one cannot seperate our conciousness from what we hear. As a consequence we all hear things differently and we are all quite poor at repeatably hearing a piece of music as identically the same each time we hear it... Our emotional state has a significant bearing on how we perceive the sound of music - and since music itself is an emotional state modifier - we have an inherently 'unstable' system. That is a system in which repeatable results are very very difficult to acheive.
This is the reason that double blind testing is so unreliable an indicator for sound quality - the act of taking part in a testing process changes the way we hear the music and hence how we score the sound...
The most reliable way to assess sound quality is to listen to lots of different pieces of music over a period of days on the test system, scoring it as one goes along and then make one change on the sytem and listen again for days, scoring again as one goes along. Finally reverse the change and again score the system over days. At the end of this one can reliable assess whether the change was beneficial or not...
So testing one change takes about three weeks... Not terribly practical. Most of us make judgements over the course of the first 60 seconds of listening and then spend a few minutes listening for evidence to reinforce that judgement (this is much like job interviews...). Then we try to live with the results and incorporate them into our sonic wisdom... It's no wonder that the quality of reproduced sound is generally lower now than it has been for half a century...
ciao
James
7N7 said
Actually Psycho-acoustics is not a different subject it is the entire subject...
It is not possible to talk about the ear/brain system that is hearing without taking into account 'us' that is one cannot seperate our conciousness from what we hear. As a consequence we all hear things differently and we are all quite poor at repeatably hearing a piece of music as identically the same each time we hear it... Our emotional state has a significant bearing on how we perceive the sound of music - and since music itself is an emotional state modifier - we have an inherently 'unstable' system. That is a system in which repeatable results are very very difficult to acheive.
This is the reason that double blind testing is so unreliable an indicator for sound quality - the act of taking part in a testing process changes the way we hear the music and hence how we score the sound...
The most reliable way to assess sound quality is to listen to lots of different pieces of music over a period of days on the test system, scoring it as one goes along and then make one change on the sytem and listen again for days, scoring again as one goes along. Finally reverse the change and again score the system over days. At the end of this one can reliable assess whether the change was beneficial or not...
So testing one change takes about three weeks... Not terribly practical. Most of us make judgements over the course of the first 60 seconds of listening and then spend a few minutes listening for evidence to reinforce that judgement (this is much like job interviews...). Then we try to live with the results and incorporate them into our sonic wisdom... It's no wonder that the quality of reproduced sound is generally lower now than it has been for half a century...
ciao
James
Hi,
And you do so by in great length analysing WHY IT CANNOT WORK, instead of at least taking the most basic scientific approach, namely empiricism. Take the claims and try them out. In the context of High End audio the cost of a bottle of C37 or Tubolator lackquer is actually laughable, I have plenty of valves on the shelfs that are worth more....
So, if you have NOT ACTUALLY TRIED something then as a sceptic you may charge that you are sceptical of the product in principle (as you are of course of anything and everything, including the eXistenZ of G*d or indeed yourself), but as you have no direct experience with the product, you simply do not know and will not know what it does untill you try.
Now to claim "it cannot make a difference" is a VERY MUCH A PRIORY assertation of fact which based on reading this thread is exclusively made up prejudice and assumption.
Of those contributing to this thread it seems only one person (me) has ever attempted to investigate "tubolator" lackquer, if in my case I could not satisfy my curiocity and must still give the option for "tubolator" to make no, a small or fundamental difference.
In the case of C37 lackquer which is an entierly different product with a different operation principle I notice again much A PRIORI assertation of a product that "cannot work" and attempts to claim the manufacturer is a Fraudster. Again, excepting one person in the discussion NO-ONE else has tried C37. So again, all comments are only based on assumtions, prejudices and at best second or third hand knowledge.
I am most seriusly amazed how such a minimum level of actual first hand information (namely zero) can, among people claiming ANY significant use of the scientific methode can result in over 100 posts.
YOU ALL HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TALK ABOUT, excepting prejudices. How such an approach can be even remotely conciderd "scientific scepticism" is simply beyound me.
I think I shall leave this thread with a quatation from Shakespeare:
"Much ado about nothing."
I shall be back for an exchange of experiences on C37 when anyone actually has any and on "tubolator" if I ever get any.
Sayonara
And you do so by in great length analysing WHY IT CANNOT WORK, instead of at least taking the most basic scientific approach, namely empiricism. Take the claims and try them out. In the context of High End audio the cost of a bottle of C37 or Tubolator lackquer is actually laughable, I have plenty of valves on the shelfs that are worth more....
So, if you have NOT ACTUALLY TRIED something then as a sceptic you may charge that you are sceptical of the product in principle (as you are of course of anything and everything, including the eXistenZ of G*d or indeed yourself), but as you have no direct experience with the product, you simply do not know and will not know what it does untill you try.
Now to claim "it cannot make a difference" is a VERY MUCH A PRIORY assertation of fact which based on reading this thread is exclusively made up prejudice and assumption.
Of those contributing to this thread it seems only one person (me) has ever attempted to investigate "tubolator" lackquer, if in my case I could not satisfy my curiocity and must still give the option for "tubolator" to make no, a small or fundamental difference.
In the case of C37 lackquer which is an entierly different product with a different operation principle I notice again much A PRIORI assertation of a product that "cannot work" and attempts to claim the manufacturer is a Fraudster. Again, excepting one person in the discussion NO-ONE else has tried C37. So again, all comments are only based on assumtions, prejudices and at best second or third hand knowledge.
I am most seriusly amazed how such a minimum level of actual first hand information (namely zero) can, among people claiming ANY significant use of the scientific methode can result in over 100 posts.
YOU ALL HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TALK ABOUT, excepting prejudices. How such an approach can be even remotely conciderd "scientific scepticism" is simply beyound me.
I think I shall leave this thread with a quatation from Shakespeare:
"Much ado about nothing."
I shall be back for an exchange of experiences on C37 when anyone actually has any and on "tubolator" if I ever get any.
Sayonara
This is DIY...opinions?
Uh, any construction QC advice?
Don't look at the MSRP, you may need to be defibrillated afterwards...
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0203/audioconsulting.htm
Uh, any construction QC advice?
Don't look at the MSRP, you may need to be defibrillated afterwards...
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0203/audioconsulting.htm
Attachments
I've got a perpetual motion machine in my garage. Please send me money and I'll ship it to you. You have no proof it doesn't work. Just send money so you can find out for yourself.
By the way, I have been using my psychic powers to observe you when you're home alone. Shame on you! You can go blind doing that!
By the way, I have been using my psychic powers to observe you when you're home alone. Shame on you! You can go blind doing that!
SY said:
Sy,
I'd love to try your perpetual motion machine. It's just what I've been looking for and would make an unusual and romantic present for my wife.
I wonder if I could do the same with your machine as I did with the C37 lacquer. Can I come along and see it in action first? Once I've done that I would be more than happy to take it home and try it. Price need not be a barrier.
By the way, have you considered using C37 on your machine. It could be more than perpetual, it could be "forever and a day".
Steve
THEM WOMEN.
Hi,
They do tend to need perpetuous pounding, don't they?
If it were my call...no.You have to have blind faith in the contraption first.
Since price is no object, you'll be charged the maximum according to the estimation of your wallet.
You know very well it is the only way to make you happy so we'll oblige.
BTW, have you tried C37 on the misses?
Although she won't make any more sense than usual, it may sound more pleasing to the ear.
Ciao,
Hi,
They do tend to need perpetuous pounding, don't they?
If it were my call...no.You have to have blind faith in the contraption first.
Since price is no object, you'll be charged the maximum according to the estimation of your wallet.
You know very well it is the only way to make you happy so we'll oblige.
BTW, have you tried C37 on the misses?
Although she won't make any more sense than usual, it may sound more pleasing to the ear.
Ciao,
Sick To Death With Having To Tolerate Idiots....
I'm back after the weekend, I look at DIY and I find even more hot air, and from even more idiot naysayers.
Sy, the empty vessel remark belongs to you, even though you were not present when I made it.
Your thread about PSU series caps reinforces my point entirely - you said something about an engineer told you.... .
You have in fact not added anything concrete to this discosion.
What you have added is knee-jerk naysaying, and it seems abundantly clear that you have not tried any of these sorts of tweaks, and presumably because you are so self knowlegable and self-rightous that you believe that none such treatments could possibly have any effect, beneficial or deleterious.
I suggest that you pull you head out of your butt, smell the fresh air, see the light, and gain some more understanding of the real world.
So you invented some keyboard tweaks - hardly rocket science - BFD.
I wish that I could reveal more of my current invention in order that you have a better understanding and appreciation of the real world, but alas, you will have to wait a while yet.
When I do reveal this thing, no doubt you will be knocked flat back on your ****, and when you get back up you will be walking in circles and scratching your head, but you will hear the difference despite your childish protests.
Other more mature folk around here have no problem at all with concepts like directionality and other 'weird' concepts - what is your problem, man.
Eric.
I'm back after the weekend, I look at DIY and I find even more hot air, and from even more idiot naysayers.
Sy, the empty vessel remark belongs to you, even though you were not present when I made it.
Your thread about PSU series caps reinforces my point entirely - you said something about an engineer told you.... .
You have in fact not added anything concrete to this discosion.
What you have added is knee-jerk naysaying, and it seems abundantly clear that you have not tried any of these sorts of tweaks, and presumably because you are so self knowlegable and self-rightous that you believe that none such treatments could possibly have any effect, beneficial or deleterious.
I suggest that you pull you head out of your butt, smell the fresh air, see the light, and gain some more understanding of the real world.
So you invented some keyboard tweaks - hardly rocket science - BFD.
I wish that I could reveal more of my current invention in order that you have a better understanding and appreciation of the real world, but alas, you will have to wait a while yet.
When I do reveal this thing, no doubt you will be knocked flat back on your ****, and when you get back up you will be walking in circles and scratching your head, but you will hear the difference despite your childish protests.
Other more mature folk around here have no problem at all with concepts like directionality and other 'weird' concepts - what is your problem, man.
Eric.
Calibrated mud
If the supporters of C37 and other expensive audio ointments are going to sling mud, could they please offer some measurements or theory to justify the price of their perfume? We've heard a whole lot of talk about method, yet no justification. I. for one, am not going to shell out umpty-ump to disprove each snake oil. It is up to the purveyor to prove its efficacy - especially when the price is high.
Oh, and I've just looked at:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0203/audioconsulting.htm
The maximum output resistance of a 100k volume control (driven from zero impedance source) is 25k, not 50k. Thevenin rules OK...
If the supporters of C37 and other expensive audio ointments are going to sling mud, could they please offer some measurements or theory to justify the price of their perfume? We've heard a whole lot of talk about method, yet no justification. I. for one, am not going to shell out umpty-ump to disprove each snake oil. It is up to the purveyor to prove its efficacy - especially when the price is high.
Oh, and I've just looked at:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0203/audioconsulting.htm
The maximum output resistance of a 100k volume control (driven from zero impedance source) is 25k, not 50k. Thevenin rules OK...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.