janneman said:
You want to really slap urself in your head a few times, try hanging a wide roll of rather transparent grille cloth across the front of the room where your speakers sit, so that you can't see anything behind the cloth and listening then. Back light the cloth if you can see anything through it...
Makes a double blind test seem like kids stuff... 😀
_-_-bear
Hi,
Jan,
So far the examples of blind tests I've seen in this thread have been so off the wall (to me at least) that it makes me really question if they carry any valuable meaning outside their own confines.
I mean really, Coke versus Pepsi, analogue recordings versus digital ones?
Sorry to say so but I get the impression both tests were out to conceal the differences, NOT to show them.
It would therefore be a lot more meaningful to know how the test was set up exactly.
What was it that was asked of the test subjest? Did he have to state a preference? Was he the only subject, etc., etc.?
As Kelticwizard states, it's surprising to see the poor chap (well not so poor really 😉 actually heard a difference.
Back in the days when the CD format was new, so that meant "better" (hey, I talk Philips too, see?), it was pretty obvious that even an analogue recording sounded better on CD (ADD) than most digital ones (DDD).
Even to this day I have some serious gripes with digital versus analogue and no, it's not just nostalgia.
Now, better than drawing this thread ebdlessly, it would be much more informative to use the forum for a poll on how many people are actully delighted with digital recordings or, for that matter, the direction the industry is pulling it.
That's just my opinion though, one I won't changing overnight unless my ears are truly convinced that indeed it (digital) is ,ore respectful of the musical message.
After well over twenty years of digital bliss, I still remain rather underwhelmed by it....
Not to mention everything that usually can, so according to Murphy's law it actually does, go wrong on the playback end of things.
As for cables in the digital era, well....If analogue seems simple math and a little metallurgy, then digital has a awful lot of "simplification" on it's hands.
They could start with adopting proper standards for a change but I guess it's already a little too late for that too...
As for Stan Curtis and his work...What can one say?
Can you blame him for chosing to give the audience what it wants?
Music instead of cold figures?
I know I can't..............
Sorry for the long rant, Janneman.
Cheers, 😉
Jan,
So far the examples of blind tests I've seen in this thread have been so off the wall (to me at least) that it makes me really question if they carry any valuable meaning outside their own confines.
I mean really, Coke versus Pepsi, analogue recordings versus digital ones?
Sorry to say so but I get the impression both tests were out to conceal the differences, NOT to show them.
It would therefore be a lot more meaningful to know how the test was set up exactly.
What was it that was asked of the test subjest? Did he have to state a preference? Was he the only subject, etc., etc.?
As Kelticwizard states, it's surprising to see the poor chap (well not so poor really 😉 actually heard a difference.
Back in the days when the CD format was new, so that meant "better" (hey, I talk Philips too, see?), it was pretty obvious that even an analogue recording sounded better on CD (ADD) than most digital ones (DDD).
Even to this day I have some serious gripes with digital versus analogue and no, it's not just nostalgia.
Now, better than drawing this thread ebdlessly, it would be much more informative to use the forum for a poll on how many people are actully delighted with digital recordings or, for that matter, the direction the industry is pulling it.
That's just my opinion though, one I won't changing overnight unless my ears are truly convinced that indeed it (digital) is ,ore respectful of the musical message.
After well over twenty years of digital bliss, I still remain rather underwhelmed by it....
Not to mention everything that usually can, so according to Murphy's law it actually does, go wrong on the playback end of things.
As for cables in the digital era, well....If analogue seems simple math and a little metallurgy, then digital has a awful lot of "simplification" on it's hands.
They could start with adopting proper standards for a change but I guess it's already a little too late for that too...
As for Stan Curtis and his work...What can one say?
Can you blame him for chosing to give the audience what it wants?
Music instead of cold figures?
I know I can't..............
Sorry for the long rant, Janneman.
Cheers, 😉
Frank,
You may be disappointed with the outcome of such a poll. I suspect 90% of the forum members have more first hand experiences with ipods than good turntables.
As Upupa sums it up beautifully
fdegrove said:
I don't know the test setup Frank, so there may be some interesting factors we're not aware of. But my point all along has been to make people understand the fact that what they think they hear, in their enthousiasme and ambition, may fall apart if extraneous factors are removed. And really, I have NOT been searching the net for days and days to carefully filter those events that support my view. The things I mentioned kind of floated by my field of vision and I caught them. First the article in HiFi+ that prodded me to start this thread, then the Coke thing, now Stan Curtis. Am I blind to those events that float by but do not support my pov? Possibly, probably. So that part is up to you😉
But you see, that's the point! You have a certain view of this, and you only want to change it 'if your ears tell you to'. Well, it's a save bet your ears won't, because they can't. It's your MIND that could do it, but why should it? Stan Curtis certainly had the same type of view like you, that digital somehow is flawed against analog. But he had the courage to put his head on the line in a DB test. He could identify the difference, but mixed up which was which. He learned a valuable lession, and I would speculate that that caused a change in his appreciation of digital vs analog.
So your poll would only make clear the relative portion of the public that held this or the other view. It would do nothing to show who is 'right' or 'wrong', because there is no 'right' or 'wrong' in the sense that the majority will hold 'beliefs' rather then well reasoned, well researched, reliably tested experiences.
No, of course not. He in his letter he makes the point of a reviewer that gave his equipment bad points for bad measurements, but had to admit he really liked to listen to it. So, one, Stan Curtis really was onto something, how to design for good sound, and two, that reviewer was a very integer and honest man.
I guess we're even now😉
Jan Didden
I would love to know how old was he when this amazing test transpired. Just curious how many more hours have my ears got left until they get totally shot.
They may be already, the mind is so good at filling in missing info that you may not have even noticed it. 🙁
analog_sa said:
He (Curtis) says 'mid 80's', so say 20 years ago.He retired, say he's 55-60. Would be around 35-40 years of age.
When did you do your last audiometric test? I routinely do mine once a year. Keep an eye on my ears, so to speak.
Jan Didden
That's why I won't go tubes. The degrading nature of tubes, that is. And you don't notice the degradation, you get used to it. Fun just thinking about all those people with their fancy Shindo gear and whatnot out there that listen to systems that are inferior to a €100 digital amp thinking they got the best. Sad, actually.
Not me. I have a few solid state amps and once in a while give them a listen as a reality check. Then it's time for degradation again.
Things appear worse than i feared. I'm way past that age. Is there really a point investing in that Jan Allerts cart if it's gonna last longer than my hearing?
It just hit me. I think I posted something similar about tubes earlier. I will sound really repetitive if that was in this thread.
Hi,
That's what I did....
I'm not worried about my ears nor am I worried about what audiometry has to say about them.
As Jan put it himself, it's not so much the mechanical side of hearing but the cerebral part that's important.
Whether your audiometry results say you can only hear to 12 KHz or not, the ear-brain interface is a really astounding "differential"
system.
We can spot differences regardless of our physical capabilities to hear the frequency range involved; it's the brain that tells us there's a difference.
By the same token, our brain let's us know whatever is more respectful of the original message. In this case the music.
If tubes were to work by "omission", I really wonder what it is that solid states "adds"?
One thing I'm sure of, it can't be "music"......😀
Cheers, 😉
That's what I did....
I'm not worried about my ears nor am I worried about what audiometry has to say about them.
As Jan put it himself, it's not so much the mechanical side of hearing but the cerebral part that's important.
Whether your audiometry results say you can only hear to 12 KHz or not, the ear-brain interface is a really astounding "differential"
system.
We can spot differences regardless of our physical capabilities to hear the frequency range involved; it's the brain that tells us there's a difference.
By the same token, our brain let's us know whatever is more respectful of the original message. In this case the music.
If tubes were to work by "omission", I really wonder what it is that solid states "adds"?
One thing I'm sure of, it can't be "music"......😀
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove said:
Sure Frank, but it will be difficult for the brain to 'hear' what your ears don't pick up. I mean, the mind will make sure that to you it will still sound wonderfull and you will enjoy the music (hell, I have an audiophile friend with hearing aids), but you cannot hear anymore say, the 3 dB difference at 12kHz between two amplifiers if you loose your ears at 10kHz.
Jan Didden
Frank and all, can you tell me, for what are these philosophical debates, which goes here several month ? All cables did not sound the same and who is not able to heard it, is deaf donkee and talking with him about this is lost time. 😉
At least I think it's great. Especially in an industry where everybody seemingly is a Naim or Transparent zombie. Where hype and bling-bling is king. Where nobody questions Sony and Philip's claims about the alleged superior SACD format when it evidently is inferior to the antiquated CD format in many regards and clearly is no match for the HDCD. Of course, there's no money to be made in HDCD. Heck, somebody even wrote a book titled "Don't Make Me Think." It's on web site design. But it's applicable to any business. Once you have forced a customer to think, you have lost him.
Edit: Also, I thought philosophy was what DIY was about, be that design philosophy or whatever. A brand nuthugger you become when you have no philosophy of your own.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.