Bratislav said:
Sadly no. They did not tell about senses together or drugs. Musicians combine sound with light and drugs from the ancient times though. Any modern gig is full of those combinations too.
Musicians dig such
Bratislav said:
No surprises. No differences could be detected in a blind test.
I bet that if the original sample was subjected to the same blind test (it clearly was not), "differences" wouldn't be heard either.
"Few tenths of a dB down above 10kHz" ??? Who was on the panel ? A flock of bats ?
No surprise? It's the second (or something like that) amp that could not be detected. All other amps tested (I'd guess a hundred or so a couple of decades back) have been picked out in the Bypass test.
The panel is made up of enthusiast and skilled audioengineers that have been doing this for a long time and prooved to be good at this. No animals as far as I know.
You thinkBryston would change the design of their top amps if this was not a relatively significant finding?
You think anyone can call Bryston and have them change their designs?
And the first amp was A/B'd according to the article, however the article is a tad confusing about A/B B/A F/E and what not tests but I know for a fact that Ingvar Öhman is very strict and scientifically minded.
/Peter
cuibono said:
Hi Bear,
Here is an infamous article:
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
Here is a useful bibliography:
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm
I am tracking down some of these articles, and hope to make them available to people here, for their reading pleasure.
Those references are hopelessly old in the main, also Tom Noisaine is referenced there...
Floyd Toole is ok, but I don't subscribe to his philosophy of speaker design in some important ways...
Something more contemporary might be better...
but thanks...
_-_-bear
john curl said:
That makes twice. I'm not sure what to make of these comments. They seem a bit out of place for someone designing cutting edge audio gear.
My motivation has always been to improve my experience with the music I like. Take that away and I don't know why I would bother. How would one gauge his success? What would the motivation be for the next change?
Definitely food for thought.
Is there some logic here that I'm missing?
Mike.
Bear, as I've said several times in this thread, there isn't much newer because there's not yet ANY data whatever to contradict this stuff. You won't find much 21st century reference to demonstrating the non-existence of aether, either, and no-one sane complains that Michelson-Morley is "too old."
The silence from the non-rationalist camp since then (as far as actual DATA) has been stunning. Just conspiracy theories, tendentious misunderstanding of the basics of sensory research, and bewildered indignation. How about just one person get off their butt, stop debating this stuff on Internet forums, and actually run some experiments? Don't like ABX? Fine, you're all creative people, design a different format of blind test.
The silence from the non-rationalist camp since then (as far as actual DATA) has been stunning. Just conspiracy theories, tendentious misunderstanding of the basics of sensory research, and bewildered indignation. How about just one person get off their butt, stop debating this stuff on Internet forums, and actually run some experiments? Don't like ABX? Fine, you're all creative people, design a different format of blind test.
Or just build a better set of speakers, or even move the plant in your room! I am sure we all agree THOSE have an appreciable difference in terms of sound. probably even more so (?) than changing the amp you are using!SY said:
But then again, this isn't a "new" observation, so I guess it doesn't count!
Which begs the question, at that point, why not go for the big bang items like speakers or room treatments??
bear said:
Those references are hopelessly old in the main, also Tom Noisaine is referenced there...
Floyd Toole is ok, but I don't subscribe to his philosophy of speaker design in some important ways...
Something more contemporary might be better...
but thanks...
_-_-bear
Hmmm ....
How about citing the works that contradict or invalidate any of those "hopelessly old" references ?
If there is nothing to prove they are wrong, people won't waste their time repeating the findings ad nauseum. How many contemporary papers do you see discussing the Kirchhoff's law ?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.