I think it would be plenty easy for anyone to search the posts you have made here and elsewhere, that you do have many opinions and theories.
You claimed that pointy legs made a difference on a CD-player DAC. You proposed reasons for this (vibration induced read errors) that have been shown to not be true.
You sell pointy legs for a solid-state amplifier, as if solid state components are significantly affected by vibration (assuming that pointy legs even have the effect you claim on s hard surface).
You sell a premium kit of expensive caps and resistors at a significantly higher price than ordinary, good commercial quality components.
You continue to make claims that these sound better in various posts around here.
You can go ahead and make these assertions, but there is nothing wrong with asking you to show some proof, and you never do.
You claimed that pointy legs made a difference on a CD-player DAC. You proposed reasons for this (vibration induced read errors) that have been shown to not be true.
You sell pointy legs for a solid-state amplifier, as if solid state components are significantly affected by vibration (assuming that pointy legs even have the effect you claim on s hard surface).
You sell a premium kit of expensive caps and resistors at a significantly higher price than ordinary, good commercial quality components.
You continue to make claims that these sound better in various posts around here.
You can go ahead and make these assertions, but there is nothing wrong with asking you to show some proof, and you never do.
Hey Jan,
That's a very good observation. That's also why I recently am not using expression "hear" or "listen" but actually I'm saying "perceiveng" depending on "your perception" . I believe it's more accurate description.
That's a very good observation. That's also why I recently am not using expression "hear" or "listen" but actually I'm saying "perceiveng" depending on "your perception" . I believe it's more accurate description.
Implying that unless we agree with you about your observations, that your ears are somehow better than mine.
geewhizbang said:
You ask me to do scientific experiments to prove something. I believe that finding posts where I do present claims would be much easier task. So do it, I'm waiting.
I did not claim that pointy feet made the difference. I only described what I observed in my system. I hope you can notice a difference here.
I can choose to sell whatever I want for my product, and frankly I don't see a reason why you would be concerned with that. Unless you are some sort of a rep from a trade commision or similar office.
I am not the only one selling expensive parts as an equipment upgrade. But I'm one of the few who actually do it at lower price than normally available from usual vendors.
No, it only shows that my perception is different. And my ears have no choice but to be different than yours. And this is a fact.geewhizbang said:
geewhizbang
Much as I sympathise with your frustrations at the state of High end audio, there is no need to specifically take out your grievances on Peter Daniel. Please desist.
Yes, you deliberately choose to evaluate things in a way that allows the known phenomenon of psychoacoustics to influence the results. Then you turn around and claim it is because your ears are so much more superior than anyone that disagrees with you.
Do I really need to go thru all of your back posts and quote you verbatim? My paraphrases of your points are rather accurate, IMHO, so I think this is just another way of moving the pea.
Do I really need to go thru all of your back posts and quote you verbatim? My paraphrases of your points are rather accurate, IMHO, so I think this is just another way of moving the pea.
geewhizbang said:
Yes, I realy DO want that.
To make it easier for you, here's the first example: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40212&pagenumber=1
Do I make a claim or do I specifically state that this will depend on your perception (and the system)?
geewhizbang,
I can tell you that Peter is one of the people who’s constantly in test-mode.
Please take a look around this forum, I can’t find anyone else except Mr. Pass that published so many results, often without claiming anything.
Simple and more complex listening test, with all sorts of components, always looking for the best, uncompromised setup.
BTW, what exactly do you want to prove with your posts?
And yes, please post links!!
/Hugo
I can tell you that Peter is one of the people who’s constantly in test-mode.
Please take a look around this forum, I can’t find anyone else except Mr. Pass that published so many results, often without claiming anything.
Simple and more complex listening test, with all sorts of components, always looking for the best, uncompromised setup.
BTW, what exactly do you want to prove with your posts?
And yes, please post links!!
/Hugo
I am not focusing on Peter Daniel, but he is just the one of a few that are so determined to make this sort of arguments.
I have never resorted to some of the low blows that Peter has used against me. I am ready to stop, because I have other things to do. I have made my points, I stand by them.
I find Peter's attitude to be so completely different than mine, and rather appalling. I just want an approach that is more aware of how easy it is to fool ourselves when we are making audio tweaks. He may well have the budget for his expensive tweaks, whether they work or not. If I am going to spend more money on things that improve the sound, it needs to be well tested and verified. I am not willing to spend any extra on an expensive resistor or pointy legs unless it really makes a difference.
To do so violates principles of good engineering, breaks my budget, for no good end.
Peter and a few others are just determined to muddle this up with a thoroughly non-scientific approach. There is a certain arrogance in their golden-ear assertion that they can hear rather amazing things, like the pointy feet on the CD player.
I don't mind if they continue in this somewhat random experimentation. And of course every now and then it will blunder into something previously unknown and that can actually be shown to exist. In those cases, a scientifically valid test would show that there IS a difference, and then we can follow it back to the source of the problem.
The problem is that Peter is unwilling to ever submit his assertions to a valid test. I find that appalling.
I have never resorted to some of the low blows that Peter has used against me. I am ready to stop, because I have other things to do. I have made my points, I stand by them.
I find Peter's attitude to be so completely different than mine, and rather appalling. I just want an approach that is more aware of how easy it is to fool ourselves when we are making audio tweaks. He may well have the budget for his expensive tweaks, whether they work or not. If I am going to spend more money on things that improve the sound, it needs to be well tested and verified. I am not willing to spend any extra on an expensive resistor or pointy legs unless it really makes a difference.
To do so violates principles of good engineering, breaks my budget, for no good end.
Peter and a few others are just determined to muddle this up with a thoroughly non-scientific approach. There is a certain arrogance in their golden-ear assertion that they can hear rather amazing things, like the pointy feet on the CD player.
I don't mind if they continue in this somewhat random experimentation. And of course every now and then it will blunder into something previously unknown and that can actually be shown to exist. In those cases, a scientifically valid test would show that there IS a difference, and then we can follow it back to the source of the problem.
The problem is that Peter is unwilling to ever submit his assertions to a valid test. I find that appalling.
janneman said:
Jan, I agree with your thoughtful post about the role of memory in perception (by the way, have you read David Bohm?), and I agree that blind testing---being the closest thing we have to creating unsubjective results---is rather a more accurate testing vehicle than the method adopted by magazine reviewers. But what if blind testing does not mesh with the brain-hearing-perception mechanism to elicit, in the test subject's perception, subtler distinguishable differences (for instance, perhaps, because the time allowed in such tests is too short)? If A/B testing doesn't properly mesh, as such, and if the sonic differences in question cannot be measured by electronic means, what then? How, in other words, does one progress the state of the art of audio lacking efficacious tools of objective measurement? This is the problem I see, which is not answered by saying, well, we need to employ more A/B testing. The brain-hearing-perception mechanism might be (in my universe, very likely is) sufficiently subtle to hear differences that current means of objective testing cannot or do not reliably catch. Speak to a violinist about subtle differences between various makes of violins---an experienced violinist would tell you those differences exist (pushing the market for the "better" violins, parenthetically, into the high-end-audio stratosphere). Ask him to prove it through an blind A/B test and see what she or he says.
gwb:
Peter doesn't have to do anything.
He does try very hard to separate objective claims from his subjective opinions. He is quite honest and straightforward that he doesn't claim any scientific validation. He is quite up-front that he does not accept the validity of controlled testing and therefore doesn't do any or claim any.
For these reasons alone, he should be accorded more respect than the common run of tweak-peddlers. It's not useful to badger him into doing things your way just because you think it's the only valid approach.
Peter doesn't have to do anything.
He does try very hard to separate objective claims from his subjective opinions. He is quite honest and straightforward that he doesn't claim any scientific validation. He is quite up-front that he does not accept the validity of controlled testing and therefore doesn't do any or claim any.
For these reasons alone, he should be accorded more respect than the common run of tweak-peddlers. It's not useful to badger him into doing things your way just because you think it's the only valid approach.
geewhizbang said:
GWB, you might find a more receptive audience if you reduced the accusatory tone of your posts and became more tentative about things you imply you know. For instance, and not to pick on you but merely to illustrate, how do you *know* with such certainty as to say Peter, whoever he is (have you met him?), is "unwilling to ever submit" etc? That kind of statement, which realistically is likely untrue, is provocative and not of the kind of inquiring tone that allows persons to talk constructively about personal differences.
serengetiplains said:
What exactly do you mean by "which the ear can audibly distinguish"? Do you mean that which has actually been shown to be audibly distinguishable or that which you suspect may be audibly distinguishable?
If you mean that which has actually been shown to be audibly distinguishable, then we can rather trivally measure well below those levels.
A bit less trivially, we can measure down to the thermal noise limit of the air itself, which also limits what we can ever possibly hear, at least by way of acoustic means.
Well, since we can ultimately (though not treribly trivially) measure down to the thermal noise limit of the air, which itself limits what we can possibly hear, I'd say the answer is no, with the same amount of certainty that you say yes above.
The ear can be amazingly sensitive. Under the right conditions (i.e. an anechoic chamber) we can hear the air molecules themselves banging against our eardrums.
But they key phrase there is "under the right conditions."
se
Peter Daniel said:
I'm not sure either. But that menas we'll have to show that it isn't correct or shut up, right? Starting to throw adjectives around like 'religious', irrational', 'arrogant' doesn't hack it, if you take yourself serious.
Jan Didden
Peter Daniel said:
Agreed 100%. But the upshot of that is that what you perceive may be very different than what I perceive. In other words, you may honestly and seriously perceive a better sound using, say, green CD pens.
Would I also perceive that improvement? Since I am sceptical, I am already primed AGAINST hearing that improvement, meaning it would have to be a very big difference indeed to convince me.
Moral: There nothing so handy as a blind test.
Jan Diddenn
janneman said:
That is correct, if you want to do it scientifically and generalize matters.
But music is much of a subjective experience and if some accesories/methods/practices enhance that experience, I don't see a reason to necessarily test everything with blind tests. Actually, if it happened that blind test shows that I'm unable to differenciate the tweaks, it might have tremendous psychological influence on my perception. Something I wouldn't like to occur, as I'm pretty happy with the things as they are now.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that everything is due to psychoacustics, but also I cannot exclude this as a possibility.
serengetiplains said:
Tom,
What is perfect in this world (except maybe my wife's body, but I am primed toward that big time😀)? I don't think that blind testing is the panacea that solves all our problems. But, and I feel strongly about that, it is orders of magnitude more sensitive and objective than sighted testing. If you throw out blind testing because it isn't perfect, we might as well throw everything and anything out and go back to living in caves.
Let me give another example of how weird our brains are. There is a specific type of brain damage, forgot the scientific name, that involves massive severance of the high capacity cabling between the left and right hemisphere. Typically, patients have perfectly functional eyes, but from one eye the inputs do not get to the part of the brain that makes it available for conciousness (mostly IIRC the left eye). There is a standard trivial test: you cover up the right ('good') eye and show something, say, a red cube with blue dots.
Then you ask the patient what he saw. Mostly, they get angry about the stupid test. They are blind on the left side, for Pete's sake! After calming them down, and removing the eye patch, they are asked to write down what they saw. More anger. OK, the tester says, just write something down, it doesn't matter. He writes down: red cube with blue dots.
And you thought we were perfectly logical beings that KNOW what we hear and see? Hah!
Jan Didden
Peter Daniel said:
Peter,
That's a pretty observant post. If you can enhance your perception by wearing blue slippers, that's an easy and cheap way to have more fun.
I think the confusion (and emotion) starts when people say (I'm not saying you do or don't, but generally): do as I, wear blue slippers, and you'll have a great musical experience. Or get brilliant pebbles, or anything. People won't believe that those blue slippers work for them, and ask for blind tests, which will most probably show zero results, so it's a pretty useless exercise.
But as soon as anybody tells me: buy this 200 $ gizmo from me, and YOUR sound system will sound much better, I demand an independent, objective test that it is so.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.