Interesting analogy john ...
Eversince I change my speakers with OB I don't hear any amp sound differences (I have 3) anymore. Weird. When using boxed speakers I used to think that this amp is more transparent compared to that amp etc. But with OB they all sound the same. In fact I'm using a tubed gainclone now just because it looks pretty
Eversince I change my speakers with OB I don't hear any amp sound differences (I have 3) anymore. Weird. When using boxed speakers I used to think that this amp is more transparent compared to that amp etc. But with OB they all sound the same. In fact I'm using a tubed gainclone now just because it looks pretty
Fool myself with what? Another design of mine? A silver one rather than a black one? Why on earth would I continue to make other amplifiers, AND if I had discovered the magic combination from the beginning? Why did I not get an A rating when the HCA2200 was reviewed? Why was the HCA3500, even better looking and more powerful, NOT get rated, when reviewed? Yet the JC-1 power amp got a A review along with the big boys, at 2-3 times the price of the JC-1? Where is the sense in this? You don't know, because you have not lived the experience, but I know why.
cuibono said:
Still reading it. Always entertaining 😉 . Love the divining/dowsing sense part. Never seen that one before 😀
tinitus said:
What I hear is due to placebo effect and imagination, so be it...at least it sounds nice to me
Who has ever argued against this?
cheers,
AJ
Bratislav said:
To me all that you prove with this is that blind testing don't work.
Just by stating that no-one said 405 was perfect, meant that it sound worse than other amps.
Why would one try to improve an amplifier that sound the same as all the other?
I don't think anyone will disagree that people can be influenced to what they hear, but to generalise this is also wrong.
I have only one goal in building a hi-fi and that is to make it sound "perfect", I don't care what means I use to reach that.
Every modification or new design idea I have, get measured and then I will listen if it sounds good, this test has failed a lot of them even though my expectations that it will work were very high. Some sounded more or less the same and others was quite worthwhile. Some initially sounded very promising but after a while you start hearing problems with its ability to reproduce the sound of certain instruments.
With everything I've experienced that influence the sound of an amplifier, I think all amplifiers are as unique as your fingerprint.
I have only one goal in building a hi-fi and that is to make it sound "perfect", I don't care what means I use to reach that.
Every modification or new design idea I have, get measured and then I will listen if it sounds good, this test has failed a lot of them even though my expectations that it will work were very high. Some sounded more or less the same and others was quite worthwhile. Some initially sounded very promising but after a while you start hearing problems with its ability to reproduce the sound of certain instruments.
With everything I've experienced that influence the sound of an amplifier, I think all amplifiers are as unique as your fingerprint.
abzug said:
Ohhh, You are here to "save the world", thats a huge task
But here we are DIYers I suppose...are you saying that it doesnt matter what we build, or HOW we build, layout component quality, carefull assembling, adjustments, and so on...will it sound the same anyhow ? 😕 well, rest assured, it does matter...and if you doesnt belive that you are only fooling yourself, and the ones you may convince...and loose the last bit of pleasure there can be in a good setup, and music listening...who is kidding who
@ janneman,
I think xiphmont is wrong in that point. Afair Dunn, Hawksford and others started their research for flaws in S/P-Dif and AES-EBU ports after a lot of people complained about sonic differences.
They presented papers and articles to give some insight in underlying principles and Dunn published a worst case criterion.
It was a couple of years later that Benjamin, Gannon and others did some studies about the audibility of jitter.
Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, 'Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality', Pre-print 4826 of the 105th AES Convention
Another study is
Kaoru Ashihara, `Detection threshold for distiortion due to jitter on digital audio´
Acoustic. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005)
available online at
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf
@ Bratislav,
it is quite easy to fool even experienced listeners if they are unfamiliar with listening under the specific test protocol conditions.
So if you want valid test results you have to train your listening panel for listening under test conditions.
And btw, if you want trustworthy test results you have to includ positive and negative controls. 🙂
Wishes
I think xiphmont is wrong in that point. Afair Dunn, Hawksford and others started their research for flaws in S/P-Dif and AES-EBU ports after a lot of people complained about sonic differences.
They presented papers and articles to give some insight in underlying principles and Dunn published a worst case criterion.
It was a couple of years later that Benjamin, Gannon and others did some studies about the audibility of jitter.
Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, 'Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality', Pre-print 4826 of the 105th AES Convention
Another study is
Kaoru Ashihara, `Detection threshold for distiortion due to jitter on digital audio´
Acoustic. Sci. & Tech. 26, 1 (2005)
available online at
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf
@ Bratislav,
it is quite easy to fool even experienced listeners if they are unfamiliar with listening under the specific test protocol conditions.
So if you want valid test results you have to train your listening panel for listening under test conditions.
And btw, if you want trustworthy test results you have to includ positive and negative controls. 🙂
Wishes
I am too late to this party to really join the fray, but I wanted to say, it was a great read this am. I've been continually surprised over 40 years or so that amplifiers with so much talent (and sincere engineering) behind their design, still manage to sound as delightfully different as they do - which I take as a good thing, being that the option of a smooth, boring, uninterrupted sea of sameness bearing "Major Brand Labels From Afar" at ever shrinking prices, would drive me out of the avocation in an instant, perhaps giving me time to take up birdwatching.
I am both an enthusiast, and in the business (small as it is), and were this to become as the computer business is - a few key specs of processor speed and screen refresh - what a godawful thought that would be to me. I think people want and enjoy that there is still some art in all of this.
I am both an enthusiast, and in the business (small as it is), and were this to become as the computer business is - a few key specs of processor speed and screen refresh - what a godawful thought that would be to me. I think people want and enjoy that there is still some art in all of this.
I listened to "the lars"
http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/02/05/15/2958-48/index.xml
and some other amps/spekers.
Yes it was probably the best 20watt's i ever heard but I dunno
I rather like my latest kind of clean-sounding amp too..
When the hifi exhibition was over ,a little surprised I drew the conclusion that very expensive audio gear can also sound bad. so it must be up to personal taste.. hehe
Hmm not sure if it's a fair comparison but the petrolhead in me just spontaniously said "yeeeah right, and all 4cylinder engines perform the same"... (even two amps/engines made to the same spec's could sound/perform differently)..
But if it's 10times more expensive the spec's it's made to is probablty a bit more narrow ;-)..
http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/02/05/15/2958-48/index.xml
and some other amps/spekers.
Yes it was probably the best 20watt's i ever heard but I dunno
I rather like my latest kind of clean-sounding amp too..
When the hifi exhibition was over ,a little surprised I drew the conclusion that very expensive audio gear can also sound bad. so it must be up to personal taste.. hehe
Hmm not sure if it's a fair comparison but the petrolhead in me just spontaniously said "yeeeah right, and all 4cylinder engines perform the same"... (even two amps/engines made to the same spec's could sound/perform differently)..
But if it's 10times more expensive the spec's it's made to is probablty a bit more narrow ;-)..
It's not very much off topic imho :-D.. It's very visable on forums.. good thing this topic is more of an opinion question, I usually se discussions on other forums about things that are worse like "you should oil the back side of the main bearing" which is easy to check out and is just plain wrong.. SO generally I dont trust anything what is said on forums as a fact..
(regarding the hifi question I'm a bit split, so after the hifi exhibition we went to I'm reduced to, "if it sounds good it sounds good, regardless of the price".. as simple as that.. ) and good sound and exact sound is not the same for everyone, but that has been said a few times now..
(regarding the hifi question I'm a bit split, so after the hifi exhibition we went to I'm reduced to, "if it sounds good it sounds good, regardless of the price".. as simple as that.. ) and good sound and exact sound is not the same for everyone, but that has been said a few times now..
Andre Visser said:
I don't think that it is a case of all blind testing not working, just that some of the commonly touted ones do not have enuff control (or as in the case of ABX, add a stressor that i believe makes them unreliable). I am trying to track down the paper/thesis by Teresa Lawless thst was mentioned earlier... the summary of the executive summary "no ABX test was accurate if a know identifiable stress factor was involved". Given that the very desugn of the test involves a stress -- the forced choice -- that could be rephrased as "no ABX test was accurate". I am also veryinterested in the list of references.
dave
Planet 10, my remark was based on what Bratislav said.
I don't have a problem with blind testing, the only thing that bother me is that I believe more than 90% of people don't care much about sound quality etc. and they are normally used to represent everybody else. Also the equipment used must fulfill certain standards. It is also more difficult to do such tests on an unknown system.
Further, I believe that the ability of hearing is a training process, the more you concentrate on what you hear the better you will get at it.
I don't have a problem with blind testing, the only thing that bother me is that I believe more than 90% of people don't care much about sound quality etc. and they are normally used to represent everybody else. Also the equipment used must fulfill certain standards. It is also more difficult to do such tests on an unknown system.
Further, I believe that the ability of hearing is a training process, the more you concentrate on what you hear the better you will get at it.
Andre, as always you make sense
I will just ad that if you dont know what to listen fore, you probably wont hear it
I will just ad that if you dont know what to listen fore, you probably wont hear it
@ planet10,
from my own experiments i came to the conclusion that the ABX protocol itself has some influences on the tested listeners. But i´d think that after some training listeners are able to adapt to the specific routines, even for very small differences.
But, one never knows, and therefore it is so important to include controls in _every_ test protocol.
Btw, influences on tested persons by other protocols have to be analyzed as well, but in the end the safety line are the controls.
@ John Curl,
yes, it would absolutely ridiculous to dismiss listening experience per se. A lot of professionals have to rely on their hearing ability and their customers as well.
Paul Frindle wrote a noteworthy article about this topic
P.Frindle, `Are we measuring the right things? Artefact Audibility versus Measurements`
The Measure for Audio-AES UK Conference,1997
Just to quote from his article:
´In an truly scientific approach, all input whatever source, should be regarded as potential input to research. In reality, the comments and observations of the practical users of audio equipment is a rich source of information. As such, it is quite wrong to discount this evidence because it is subjective or arrived at by unscientific means in the strictest sense"
That is a perfect example for an open minded and objective position.
And of course he is an strict advocat for double blind testing (even for the disliked by me ABX-Test 🙂 ) .
He described that it took them 3 days to develop a simple buffer amplifier that was transparent in an ABX.
Some things he mentionend that were confirmed as audible in their tests:
a) Absolute and stereo differential gain anomalies of less than 0.1dB
b) Differential stereo delays of 1 µs
c) Freqency response variations of 0.1dB from `flat`20Hz-20kHz
d) Harmonic distortion components at 80dB below signal level, even when they are more than 10dB below noice floor
.
.
.
In the end the not so surprising summarize would be, do measure and do listen to ensure that you catch all things. 🙂
Wishes
from my own experiments i came to the conclusion that the ABX protocol itself has some influences on the tested listeners. But i´d think that after some training listeners are able to adapt to the specific routines, even for very small differences.
But, one never knows, and therefore it is so important to include controls in _every_ test protocol.
Btw, influences on tested persons by other protocols have to be analyzed as well, but in the end the safety line are the controls.
@ John Curl,
yes, it would absolutely ridiculous to dismiss listening experience per se. A lot of professionals have to rely on their hearing ability and their customers as well.
Paul Frindle wrote a noteworthy article about this topic
P.Frindle, `Are we measuring the right things? Artefact Audibility versus Measurements`
The Measure for Audio-AES UK Conference,1997
Just to quote from his article:
´In an truly scientific approach, all input whatever source, should be regarded as potential input to research. In reality, the comments and observations of the practical users of audio equipment is a rich source of information. As such, it is quite wrong to discount this evidence because it is subjective or arrived at by unscientific means in the strictest sense"
That is a perfect example for an open minded and objective position.
And of course he is an strict advocat for double blind testing (even for the disliked by me ABX-Test 🙂 ) .
He described that it took them 3 days to develop a simple buffer amplifier that was transparent in an ABX.
Some things he mentionend that were confirmed as audible in their tests:
a) Absolute and stereo differential gain anomalies of less than 0.1dB
b) Differential stereo delays of 1 µs
c) Freqency response variations of 0.1dB from `flat`20Hz-20kHz
d) Harmonic distortion components at 80dB below signal level, even when they are more than 10dB below noice floor
.
.
.
In the end the not so surprising summarize would be, do measure and do listen to ensure that you catch all things. 🙂
Wishes
If better amplifiers have sufficient frequency response, low distortion, low phase shift and whatever other criteria we set, how is it that the Carver transfer function challenge ever took place? They obviously heard a difference between very good amps at the beginning of the challenge, and then converged on a near match after Carver's mods. I still believe that if you meet the criteria, amps will be indistinguishable, so do some (all?) high end amps have a designed in signature that's pretty obvious? IMO, the Carver challenge proved that if you get the transfer functions to match, the amps will sound the same, but it also proved that all amps don't sound the same- I believe for straightforward and measurable reasons.
Another thought/question- Let's assume some nasty reactive load like a speaker. Can you think of any conditions where two amps would produce the exact same voltage waveform at their output terminals (let's call the speaker wires part of the speaker for now), *but* have differing current flows? IMO. long term this violates some fundamental laws, but if you just consider a short period, I can envision history outside the measurement window that would affect the results inside the measurement window. Since the speaker is an energy storage system, maybe identical voltage signals aren't as identical as I'd hope. I hold this belief in identical voltage signals pretty strongly, but that alone makes it worth questioning.
Another thought/question- Let's assume some nasty reactive load like a speaker. Can you think of any conditions where two amps would produce the exact same voltage waveform at their output terminals (let's call the speaker wires part of the speaker for now), *but* have differing current flows? IMO. long term this violates some fundamental laws, but if you just consider a short period, I can envision history outside the measurement window that would affect the results inside the measurement window. Since the speaker is an energy storage system, maybe identical voltage signals aren't as identical as I'd hope. I hold this belief in identical voltage signals pretty strongly, but that alone makes it worth questioning.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.