janneman said:
I sense a slight desire to misinterpret what I actually pretty honestly was trying to say.
To put it in other words, I simply don't care why it works, what you think about it, or what kind of proof is neccessary to change your mind.
As far as I find pleasure in what I'm doing, I will continue doing it, regardless of what others might think.
PS: The only way to do the test, you either borrow that $200 gizmo, or you buy it. But you can't do a test without having it. And since such test may be greatly dependant on your perception, it wouldn't be wise to ask someone else doing it for you.
Peter Daniel said:
No 'desire' Peter, if I misinterpreted it, it is because I misunderstood it.
And yes, if I want to test it, I need to get the thing. In practise, you can't keep up with everything, you make a choice depending on what seems promising/possible based on your own prejudice and possible erroneous opinions. That's life, isn't it?
But can you see my point that as soon as someone starts peddling whatever works for them to others, for money, with the message that it also works for them, that's a different ball game, isn't it? Even if they're quite honest about it, I am entitled to ask 'show me'.
Jan Didden
Steve Eddy said:
Steve, take a simple tube line stage, capacitively coupled with a polypropylene capacitor. Swap the polypropylene cap out with a teflon variety. If I've had enough time with the circuit prior to swapping caps, I'll almost certainly hear a difference. Assuming that difference exists (factors like capacitor DA suggest an electrical if not acoustic difference exists), are you saying the difference is currently measurable?
janneman said:
Pictures, Jan, pictures.
Well, I wasn't asking that a test be perfect before declaring myself willing to use it. I was, rather, questioning whether a typical A/B test actually allows the hearing-perception mechanism to elicit subtler audible differences, assuming they exist. Allow me to reiterate an experience I've had numerous times. I swap out carbon resistors in part of a circuit for Vishays, and hear a difference. Likely the difference I hear is a difference arising from my brain comparing new audio input (from Vishay'd gear) and expectation (from old carbon resistor gear)---clearly this must be in such instance. I feel quite confident in my ability to hear the so-called "sound" of components under these circumstances. I don't feel confident I could hear such difference if I hadn't had previous experience with the piece of electronics used as the test gear, for reason that I'm insufficiently attuned, by way of built-up expectations, to notice differences that well might exist. Gotta go.
serengetiplains said:
I would say that there is nothing that is currently known to be actually audible which is not measurable, trivally so in most instances.
Since your question above is based on an assumption of facts not in evidence, that's the best answer I can give.
se
What's also interesting, is that although people might not hear the differences in blind testing, the reports of subjective changes, while using different but specific components, are usually coinciding. By that I mean that for instance, someione using this and that pot claims exactly same, personal observations that I had observed in my system, without previous communication.serengetiplains said:
If this whole thing would be only psychological, in many instances the difference should be random, depending on expectations of the tester. However it is almost never a case.
Hi,
Does a polyproplyne cap measure the same as a ptfe cap?
It doesn't.
Does a carbon film resistor measure the same as a (bulkfoil?) Vishay metalfilm?
It doesn't.
Would I hear the difference between the two in a blind test?
Quite likely.
A simple test: build yourself two amps, one using same brand carbon films, the other Vishays and listen.
If your system has high enough resolution and the amps as well chances are you'll hear the difference.
If I perceive/hear those differences and at least a few hundred other people do as well, chances are there is a difference.
If we can't measure that in our usual ways then we're quite likely not using the proper tools.
Cheers, 😉
Does a polyproplyne cap measure the same as a ptfe cap?
It doesn't.
Does a carbon film resistor measure the same as a (bulkfoil?) Vishay metalfilm?
It doesn't.
Would I hear the difference between the two in a blind test?
Quite likely.
A simple test: build yourself two amps, one using same brand carbon films, the other Vishays and listen.
If your system has high enough resolution and the amps as well chances are you'll hear the difference.
If I perceive/hear those differences and at least a few hundred other people do as well, chances are there is a difference.
If we can't measure that in our usual ways then we're quite likely not using the proper tools.
Cheers, 😉
Yes, but don't forget that just the act of changing a component primes people (they are hoping for) to expect an IMPROVEMENT, so there is no 'random' expectation.
Jan Didden
Jan Didden
Hi,
That's just psychological expectation which is just one factor...
But what if people hear a difference not even knowing that there SHOULD be one in the first place?
Which in essence is some sort of a blind test even if it wasn't deliberately set up as one...
Which in turn is about the best confirmation of your own perceptional senses IMHO.
Cheers, 😉
That's just psychological expectation which is just one factor...
But what if people hear a difference not even knowing that there SHOULD be one in the first place?
Which in essence is some sort of a blind test even if it wasn't deliberately set up as one...
Which in turn is about the best confirmation of your own perceptional senses IMHO.
Cheers, 😉
janneman said:
Actually, it should be a random expectation, as everybody expects a change (I'm not expecting an improvement as many times it was not such), but the reports of those changes are usualy describing the same properties of the parts under description. In other words if I say "bright" the other guy also uses description that is similar to"bright". If I say smooth or dull, I'm getting similar reports from others. It is never completely opposite.
janneman said:
I'm quite curious which parts of the forum you usually hang on? From what I experienced so far, nobody can expect an improvement from unknown part. If you read some of my reports, many often the parts other claim as improvement I simply dismiss as not suitable for a given circuit.
Very rearly I see improvement, I mostly see a change. I'm tweaking my ML38 preamp for almost 6 months now, and I'm still far away from a real improvement.
fdegrove said:
But a very important factor. And one which whill always leave you with an ambiguity until it can be confidently ruled out.
That can happen too in the absence of any actual audible differences. Conscious expectation isn't required for there to be the perception of a difference even in the absence of one.
But it lacks many of the controls which would be in place for those which were deliberately set up as blind tests.
That's rather like someone having some "bad feeling" just before something bad happens being a "confirmation" of one's prescience.
We live in a world in which coincidences happen all the time. If you don't weed out coincidence, again, you're left with ambiguity.
se
Peter Daniel said:
OK, see your point. It's just that people make changes to go forward, I mean they don't select the component they are going to change indifferently. So they hope if not expect an improvement and that's a bias.
But I am skating on thin ice here, admittedly.
Jan Didden
I, for one, will sorely miss you. You not only provided heaps of light entertainment, you even managed to embarass fellow pelicanists with the strength of belief and ignorance.
Indeed. He spends days building and auditioning all sorts of designs and components. For anyone spending time only in church or with the bible this attitude would be appaling.
May you wish to supply a list of tweaks you tried and which didn't work? Strangely you never ever mentioned any such experiences.
If you really wanted to know these answers you could try cheap pointy legs and resistors and see if you can hear a difference but apparently sitting behind a keyboard and venting frustrations is a lot easier than actually building something.
Hi,
You mean the test method I just described?
Sure...That's exactly how I worked within the context of my own company for about 10 years.
Whatever was "tested" was confirmed by many others listening to the system setup and still is being confirmed by many others to this very day.
Some of the test subjects retested components voluntarily within their own system and almost never did any contradicting results emerge from it.
Again, I feel very much convinced that the best testing circumstances are those where people just don't expect it: you can be pretty certain they're not telling you anything to please or displease you, neither would they lie just to show off how accurate their abilities are.
All in all this is an honest to god testing environment, I really can't think of a better one.
You may ask Peter Daniel how many times we actually found out
how we felt alike about the same sonic properties of components without us actually looking for it and not knowing we did find the same results beforehand.
It just incidentally got confirmed.
That's just an easy example I'm giving you and I wouldn't be surprised if many other members could confirm it just the same.
In fact I'm 100% certain that all the descriptions of passive components or circuit topologies I ever tested are indeed accurate.
Cheers,😉
You mean the test method I just described?
Sure...That's exactly how I worked within the context of my own company for about 10 years.
Whatever was "tested" was confirmed by many others listening to the system setup and still is being confirmed by many others to this very day.
Some of the test subjects retested components voluntarily within their own system and almost never did any contradicting results emerge from it.
Again, I feel very much convinced that the best testing circumstances are those where people just don't expect it: you can be pretty certain they're not telling you anything to please or displease you, neither would they lie just to show off how accurate their abilities are.
All in all this is an honest to god testing environment, I really can't think of a better one.
You may ask Peter Daniel how many times we actually found out
how we felt alike about the same sonic properties of components without us actually looking for it and not knowing we did find the same results beforehand.
It just incidentally got confirmed.
That's just an easy example I'm giving you and I wouldn't be surprised if many other members could confirm it just the same.
In fact I'm 100% certain that all the descriptions of passive components or circuit topologies I ever tested are indeed accurate.
Cheers,😉
Sounds convincing. Except that last sentence. Did you HAVE to say 100% certain?😉
Where are you in belgium? I wouldn't mind to be invited for a listen, I'll even bring your favorite beer.
Where are you in belgium? I wouldn't mind to be invited for a listen, I'll even bring your favorite beer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.