What are the inaccuracies?
Strictly speaking, none.
The test was to see if MF could tell the difference. The other subjects were the controls.
John
Strictly speaking, none.
The test was to see if MF could tell the difference. The other subjects were the controls.
John
Even after being repeatedly asked you never come up with anything substantial. You are a blowhard who has nothing substantive to say or add about the subject. You make little snipes and then run away.Andy G said:
"Now, what amazed me about the result was that one of the amps was a vacuum tube amp that sounded way different from the others yet most test takers couldn't hear what was obvious to me."
There would have to be some latitude given to say most tube amps measure the "same" as better solid state units. There is little chance all relevant measurements were compared i.e. performance near clipping, etc. And wasn't Fremmer the subject of the Carver challenge?
I can easily remember the difference even after 30yr. between the Dyna MkIII's and Hafler 220's I built, I don't think settling whether "all amplifiers sound the same" is very important.
There would have to be some latitude given to say most tube amps measure the "same" as better solid state units. There is little chance all relevant measurements were compared i.e. performance near clipping, etc. And wasn't Fremmer the subject of the Carver challenge?
I can easily remember the difference even after 30yr. between the Dyna MkIII's and Hafler 220's I built, I don't think settling whether "all amplifiers sound the same" is very important.
What discussion? He never comes up with substance. Until then I will call it like I see it, and as I see it 'blowhard' is descriptive and accurate.SY said:
The test in question was whether Michael Fremer could tell if amplifiers that measured the same sounded the same.
I do wish SY wasn't so coy about sharing his insider information on these things.
John
SY said:
The joke is buried somewhere in there, out of a random group of 100 people, I will also expect that very few will be able to distinguish between amps that measure the same, it will take a trained listener to do that.
The joke is that these 'tests' are designed to accommodate the average listener, then the result is suppossed to be applicable to everybody.
The way I read it, there were 5 different amplifiers and he named each one correctly, the chance of doing that by chance is similar to winning the lottery, definately not the same as flipping a coin.
Andre Visser said:
Not really Andre. Suppose that there is no audible difference. Then, with 100 people identifying the 5 amps, there will be several that will have 5 out of 5 correct. With NO audible difference.
Saying it another way, if you use 100 completely deaf people to do this, there will be several that get 5 out of 5 correct.
Hardly the same as winning the lotterie!
Now of course MF will state that HE got 5 out of 5 because he really DID hear it. But there's no way to know that that actually is true.
jd
jlsem said:
I just checked the article is still up on the Carver website: www.carveraudio.com/CarverChallenge.pdf.
To quote Fremmer, "Bob won". Carver made one of his amps sound the same as a tube amp by measurement, of what mattered presumably, and Fremmer could not tell the difference. Knowing Carver you would have to work seriously to reduce the BOM i.e. there is probably a $100 at most in parts in his amp.
scott wurcer said:
Scott I don't mean to come like an @$$hole but if you want to see controls that eliminated all response deviations to below .1dB then my friend, you'll have to do those tests yourself. First I'm NOT DIY oriented so I wouldn't have the slightest clue of how to get all response deviations of a Kimber PBJ and a Nordost Blue Heaven to match to below .1dB. Second I believe any IC that doesn't have large frequency aberrations is a properly made IC.
I don't know why ICs sound different I just know they do. Although I believe the sonic differences are most likely a result of a combination of things such as; the types of wires used ---{copper, silver, gold, silver-plated copper etc.}--- Maybe cable geometry plays a factor? Especially when you consider that it because a wire carrying current produces both a magnetic field and an electric field. Perhaps the magnetic field that "curls around" the pos. wire is reacting or interacting with the magnetic field that "curls around" the neg. wire? Then of course there is an electric field along the wire, which radiates "outward" from the wire. Could this electric field reacting or interacting with the magnetic field that's around the wires? Could cable geometry play a part in how much magnetic and electric fields affect the sound? What about different dielectrics used? Maybe these dielectrics affect the magnetic and electric fields around the wires?
Please bear with me if I made mistakes as I said I'm not DIY oriented but, I have been reading and I'm trying to learn why these things might affect an IC's sound. Of course as none of this has been proven or disproven IIRC that is, it's also quite possible that frequency response deviations are the only differences we're hearing. However if it's only frequency response deviations we're hearing in ICs I'd like to challenge someone to build an IC that duplicates my present IC's frequency response deviations but, without knowing the types of wires used, the cable geometry employed or dielectrics used etc. in my IC. Then we can listen and see if the tow ICs sound identical or not. If they do I'll be amazed.
SY said:
Sy this is taking a lot longer than I thought it would. I'm disabled and been in terrible pain these last few day. Here's what I've managed to type so far...
I'd like to also mention these tests were originally done because I didn't believes wires could possibly "sound" different or cause a system to sound different. Thus my expectations were not to hear any differences. I setup a day on the weekend were two friends could help assist me with the test. One friend switched the wires and remained unseen during the entire test. The other friend sat behind me and didn't speak to me. His presence was required to verify I didn't get up and look at the wires and to make sure the wires were properly hidden at all times. This is how the test was done.
a) The interconnects were readily available from well known & respected audio cable manufacturers:
1) copper wire (Kimber PBJ)
2) silver-plated copper wire (Nordost Blue Heaven)
3) silver wire (Kimber KCAG)
4) gold-plated gold/silver/copper alloy wire (I apologise but, I cannot recall who made this IC. IIRC it was Siltech. I also cannot remember if the wire was solid gold, gold-plated-silver or gold-plated gold/silver/copper alloy wire. What I do remember is it was used because it contained gold in the wires)
b) No SPL meters were used for few reasons.
1) There was no way we were going to spend the time and effort with adding additional components be they R, L, C, equalizers etc. to match SPLs of all frequecies between different ICs. It's my contention that "if" an IC is not intentionally or specifically made to have gross frequency aberrations then it is a properly made IC.
2) It was also felt that any additional components used to match SPLs would only complicate the tests with the addition of these other components which could in themselves be what makes the wires sound different in the end.
3) I believe ---{I have no proof}--- people have a specific volume level they inherently enjoy listening at & they'll inherently listen at the level or very close to it, most times. I also don't believe listening SPL differences matter, provided one always turns the volume to it's minimum level and shuts the system off before switching wires, powers the system up and then slowly raises the volume until it's at the inherent enjoyable listening level the person being tested enjoys listens at. That said, the following was done.
3a) The same song, Steely Dan's Aja, was always used. I find this song to be invaluable, especially if I'm attempting to discriminate between two ICs I might be having difficulty with. When this happens I'll listen specifically to when the drummer stops his solo and hits his drumsticks together (4:56-4:57) into the song. I've found transients are often where ICs sound uniquely different and the striking of these drumsticks often helps me to deteremine if the IC has been changed or not!
3b) When I was satisfied I could or couldn't hear a difference, I'd write down my decision A or B. Then volume was brought to as low as possible via the volume control on the component & then the component was switched off. At that point I'd walk upstairs and one friend who sat behind me during the test would follow me upstairs into the living room. At this point this friend and I could talk about anything but the test or audio.
3c) The other friend who was sitting outside in the back yard waited for 30 secs after he heard silence ---{as a result of #3b above being completed}--- He'd then enter the basement/audio room from the outside hatchway. At that point the IC being used could be changed to another different IC or it could removed and reinserted. It was required that the IC be removed from the system EVERYTIME! This was done in an effort to keep the time between IC changes more consistant and not possibly albeit subtely provide me with a clue having the change done to quickly. After the change was made this friend returned outside via the outside hatchway door.
3d) When I'd hear the hatchway door shut the friend who monitored my actions and I would go back downstairs, power the system up and slowly raise the volume until the sound level was again at what I previously refered to as the inherent enjoyable listening level. and we'd be back at step # 3b again. Steps # 3b - 3d were repeated until the test was completed.
Please let me know any specific questions you may have also please forgive any blatant errors I'm in a lot of pain.
Thetubeguy1954
No, the test was not of Michael Fremer. He was an audience member at a large crowd demonstration at an AES convention. AFAIK, he has never deigned to be put individually to the test. The one chance he got, he insisted on breaking the controls, then refused to be tested.
No insider information, this is all public record.
1954, many thanks for taking the effort to write all of this! I'll read through this carefully after I get home tonight and probably have a few questions for you.
The problem with that argument is that Fremer was the person under test (according to him). In a group of 100 people and a coin flipping contest, betting that a particular person will get 5/5 would be going against astronomical odds.
Link?
John
scott wurcer said:
I believe that is not the test jlsem is talking about.
There is a lot of irony in this test also, first the 'hi-end tube amp' sounded much better than the 'cheap SS amp', after Carver downgraded his 'cheap SS amp' it sounded the same as the hi-end tube amp. 😕
- Status
- Not open for further replies.