Generally, the "victims" have no trouble distinguishing the cables in just a few minutes of listening- as long as they can peek. In any of my tests (not generally cable) and certainly any of Nousaine's tests, everyone agreed beforehand that the differences under those test conditions were audible.
Steve Eddy tried to organize a long term test with another fellow who was just as aggressively clueless as some of the posters here (I think this was on cable directionality). With that excuse disposed of, the guy suddenly disappeared.
SY said:
Having made such tests in the past, I have to agree to some extend.
95% of the reasonable quality power amps that's out there sounds pretty much the same.
The reason I guess you get this much opposition, is that many of the amps people build here, and especially by the Pass aficionados, is deliberately not aiming for that 95% category, and those amps sure don't sound the same, not bay a far cry.
Magura 🙂
Can't comment on Pass amps (never built, used, or measured one, never had a side-by-side listen), but certainly in the tube world. lots of folks are making combination effects boxes and room heaters. They do NOT sound the same- frequency response aberrations and a high distortion glaze.
rdf said:
Colorful language aside you you are correct. If the purpose of home audio is to allow one access to music for one's own pleasure then a Williamson is all you need.
I have recently brought a new car but I can't visit any new destinations because of it. I enjoy it more though so where is the gap?
Hi,
No, I think he just used what was commonly available at the time.
And yes, within the concept of the design, changing components such as caps, resistors and wire would still be audible.
I think of the two the speakers were much better than the amps though.
Ciao, 😉
fredex said:
No, I think he just used what was commonly available at the time.
And yes, within the concept of the design, changing components such as caps, resistors and wire would still be audible.
I think of the two the speakers were much better than the amps though.
Ciao, 😉
Hi,
Jan, I understand what you're saying.
In fact I find it interesting. Very interesting even.
The power of suggestion is a very powerful one indeed but it won't make me go any faster up the Mont-Ventoux than I can physically muster for the simple reason that whatever is suggested may well be to easy to see through....But you never know....
Even though one may surpass one self by the power of suggestion, one could well have done so without.
To understand that it takes a sportsman, not a scientist.
Anything further, I'd suggest you e-mail me and I'll gladly explain.
With respect,
Frank.
janneman said:
Jan, I understand what you're saying.
In fact I find it interesting. Very interesting even.
The power of suggestion is a very powerful one indeed but it won't make me go any faster up the Mont-Ventoux than I can physically muster for the simple reason that whatever is suggested may well be to easy to see through....But you never know....
Even though one may surpass one self by the power of suggestion, one could well have done so without.
To understand that it takes a sportsman, not a scientist.
Anything further, I'd suggest you e-mail me and I'll gladly explain.
With respect,
Frank.
Hi,
Essentially the LCR statement is absolutely correct.
Yet within these parameters the truth can hold a million faces and that's what you need to see.
Cheers, 😉
Jakob2 said:
Essentially the LCR statement is absolutely correct.
Yet within these parameters the truth can hold a million faces and that's what you need to see.
Cheers, 😉
Hi,
You're starting to sound like the pope.
Worse still, like a Jesuiet.
I.e comfortably numb.
Mazzeltov, 😉
Cojones? Muy chico........
IOW, typical.
Cheers,
SY said:
You're starting to sound like the pope.
Worse still, like a Jesuiet.
I.e comfortably numb.
Mazzeltov, 😉
Cojones? Muy chico........
IOW, typical.
Cheers,
When I ate the cookie, it remained a cookie.
OT: I have a good friend and drinking buddy who's an archbishop. The only time I ever saw him look uncomfortable was when I proposed an experiment to prove (or not) transubstantiation. It involved a dose of Ipecac after the host, followed by some DNA analysis. Needless to say, he demurred on participation.
Sorry, Frank, nothing sacred in my world including your faith-based claims.
OT: I have a good friend and drinking buddy who's an archbishop. The only time I ever saw him look uncomfortable was when I proposed an experiment to prove (or not) transubstantiation. It involved a dose of Ipecac after the host, followed by some DNA analysis. Needless to say, he demurred on participation.
Sorry, Frank, nothing sacred in my world including your faith-based claims.
Multi tones
Sorry to be so long posting this.
Here is Scott's multi-tone signal.
I've chopped it down to 30 secs and converted it to mono to limit file size. It does not compress worth a darn, so it's in wave format.
I'll get some others up soon.
Multi-tone1 mono Right click to save.
Sorry to be so long posting this.
Here is Scott's multi-tone signal.
I've chopped it down to 30 secs and converted it to mono to limit file size. It does not compress worth a darn, so it's in wave format.
I'll get some others up soon.
Multi-tone1 mono Right click to save.
fdegrove said:
This is incorrect. The speed with with you go up Mont Ventoux can be varied by suggestion, because it can vary the amount of 'muster'. This is a basic point. If you self-suggest that you can't go faster than you can, you have already lost. The secret of the best is to drive yourself beyond what you thought you could do.
This is also who I don't believe that DBT's cause so much stress that suble differences cannot be heard. Contrarywise, it is a typical human trait to perform BETTER under stress.
jd
@ rdf,
interesting guy indeed:
Frindle, Paul. 1997. Are We Measuring the Right Things? Artifact Audibility Versus
Measurement. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society UK Conference, The
Measure of Audio, London, April 28–29, 1997
Very interesting paper, not only wrt his dbt results but in regard to his approach in general.
A quotation from an earlier post:
"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. 🙂
interesting guy indeed:
Frindle, Paul. 1997. Are We Measuring the Right Things? Artifact Audibility Versus
Measurement. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society UK Conference, The
Measure of Audio, London, April 28–29, 1997
Very interesting paper, not only wrt his dbt results but in regard to his approach in general.
A quotation from an earlier post:
"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. 🙂
this does not surprise me.Jakob2 said:
I believe that the ear/brain is very good at differentiating a few tones that arrive nearly simultaneously.
change the relative level of one of these tones and we hear the difference.
Try to measure that difference in absolute level and our instruments struggle.
Similarly we rely on timing to detect where a sound is coming from. Through evolution this has become important for our survival although of less importance for modern humans.
Listen to a number of simultaneous conversations. Our brain can "home in" on one even though it may be quieter.
Similarly when listening to noise on the radio, one can often hear some kind of recognisable pattern in the noise. It may be music or voice or some other familiar sound. But try to measure it and again our instrumentation struggles.
We are clever at what we have become able to do. The PC in our head is way better than any artificial PC will ever be.
Jakob, I downloaded that paper. No results or detailed methodology presented, no confirmation (or refutation) of miraculous wire or amplifier characteristics, no experimentation whatever, just some rather gaseous philosophizing. There wasn't anything obviously wrong, there just wasn't much of anything- except word count.
I guess I don't understand your point. But I'm now $5 poorer.😀
I guess I don't understand your point. But I'm now $5 poorer.😀
Hi,
The point is that the power of suggestion only works when the subject believes in it.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. Now if you have any suggestions that could make me climb faster, I'm all ears. (Kidding).
janneman said:
The point is that the power of suggestion only works when the subject believes in it.
Cheers, 😉
P.S. Now if you have any suggestions that could make me climb faster, I'm all ears. (Kidding).
fdegrove said:
No, no! You/I/we can't help it! We're wired to react in a certain way to suggestions whether we want it or not. For example, you can be very aware of any advertising (it's pretty impossible NOT to), and tell yourself they're not going to get you, but still it influences your purchasing decisions.
jd
SY said:
I sometimes don´t know whether it is the language barrier or more sort of readers bias. 🙂
I´m pretty sure not to have mentioned that Paul Frindle would have confirmed some miraculous wire or amplifier characteristics.
My point is;
1.) While i don´t like the ABX-protocol and have noticed that it indeed is a confounder itself to the participants i´ve tried with, it seems that others were able to get (imho impressive) results with this tests. That not only includes Paul Frindle but Bruno Putzeys as well.
2.) When we are trying to test something like cables we should use (at least) something from this catalog as positive control to ensure that listeners reach a sufficient sensitivity level during the test
3.) You´ve mentioned your tests (and Nousaines) with audiophiles and reported that they were sure that differences were audible under these conditions.
For what point should this be an argument? Remember we are doing tests because we don´t trust in humans, and therefore you can´t rely on something they have told about what they think could be audible; you _are_ _doing_ _tests_ and therefore you have to _test_ if your listeners are sensitive enough under test conditions.
Everything else is a ´contradictio in ratio´;
4.) If you don´t test the sensitivity of your listeners under the specific test conditions you don´t know why (if so) your test gave a negative result, because you have not investigate it.
The most common conclusion of a negatve test result is, that a difference must be inaudible, while otherwise the test would have had a positive result, but that is just a common misunderstanding as long as you haven´t included sufficient positive controls (and negative controls in case of a positive test result).
Even then, the Black Swan applies. NO test can prove inaudibility- it's a matter of simple logic. A test can only demonstrate audibility.
I don't see any clue of how Frindle's tests meet your definitions- he gives NO information or data whatever, just asserted conclusions, surrounded by crashingly obvious strawmen. No information on test setups, on controls, no actual data. Maybe he's done some brilliant work, but it certainly isn't supported in the way a scientific paper should be.
It still returns to:
1. Fundamental engineering and physics do not show any significant effects on the electrical signal delivered to the speakers which cannot be attributed to frequency response or stability.
2. Given that, the absence of even one successful controlled subjective result, despite different experimenters, test setups, commercial motives, and test subjects is certainly STRONGLY suggestive that the claims of major sonic differences are mistaken.
3. Most, not all, but most of the claims defy superposition (especially the odd "the sound is not very dependent on length, more on construction and materials"). That's equivalent to claiming perpetual motion.
"Positive controls" does not add even a shred of wiggle room.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.