OK
OK, I don't know when that was (and problem for whom?). My impression is that people who claim to hear differences tend to feel put upon when asked to quantify those differences, or to demonstrate them in double-blind tests. And a lot of those folks tend to offer supernatural explanations for what they claim to hear. So yeah, they get a rougher ride here than they would on some more credulous sites.
Having said that, I also agree that in the right context even the "objectivist" folks here are willing to discuss possible mechanisms at work that *could* affect audible distortion in audio circuits. The best and most experienced circuit designers here understand that circuits can have unexpected responses at certain edge cases, and I think that POV gets plenty of respect here.
You said a mouthful there.
Another one for your proofreader: It has been explained to me that 'imagine' is the wrong word here, it should be 'illusion'
Jan
John are you going to tell me what that opamp was in your design a few pages back? Was it as I suspect a uA709?
Jan
Another one for your proofreader: It has been explained to me that 'imagine' is the wrong word here, it should be 'illusion'
Jan
Fair enough. I just tried to verify the correct word usage and found this definition:
il·lude
verb literary
trick; delude.
"he had allowed his imagination to illude him"
Agreed. A question then is why is that the case? Some people feel very confident about ABX testing, and others feel it's use has practical limitations. This post provides some discussion of why there could be problems tests commonly used: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-9035.html#post4934435
It seems to me that people asked to quantify differences may in effect be called upon to perform new scientific research (to find new and better ways to better measure what their claimed abilities), which many people here have not been trained to do.
Regarding testing, I don't think too many people have a problem with double-blind testing, so long as they are convinced that the tests are reliable and accurate. If they hear differences and tests fail to pick up something real, then there may be a problem with tests.
Since the testing of hearing amounts to medical testing, it should be noted that many ongoing problems remain in medical testing, even when conducted by experts in that field.
That some electronics engineers without medical research training and experience go off on their own and try to DIY, doesn't mean their results are necessarily all that good.
It is a very complex area to work in. Engineers should bring in one or more experts from medicine, psychology, and neuroscience as coauthors if they want to be taken more seriously.
In addition, AES publishes some things that probably should never see the light of day. When hearing tests using modern technology audio systems, and suitable coauthors get published in a Nature or Science, or anything close to that, then at least some standard of quality research is implied.
Doesn't mean a study won't require replication for verification of results, but at least we talking about something better than some of what we have now.
Last edited:
You mix that up with the thread-endemic Bentley
It also reminds at the meaning of "taking someone for a ride"
Last edited:
I would like to start once with one of the "you have to be deaf or a liar" or one of the "it's audible to me and my buddies in 5 seconds" claims. These claims to me at least imply just about any protocol would do. You could leave ABX out if you want I don't particularly like it myself.
I lost the link but I came across a long nicely written blog post by a serious audiophile in Toronto with at least one friend with unlimited resources, honestly going over how difficult and sometimes detectable one day and not the next these things can be. Some of these same things are the subject of outrageous claims here.
Last edited:
Same to you. A good example of the cymbals just being additive noise (even I can hear that).
This particular backwater will never get drained, and hopefully it will just be forgotten. It's New Year's weekend again are you watching the Twilight Zone orgy I am, someday even it will be forgotten ?
Scott,
Also been watching the Twilight Zone but wish they would start the series with the Outer Limits.
My take on what John espouses is that he seems to say that the ultimate audio electronics is vacuum tube based, second and where he works is solid state devices and worst is integrated circuits of any kind including opamps. So in his eyes we have been going backwards since the 50's it would seem and audio reproduction is moving in the wrong direction. This is where I think the majority of us disagree, that we need to return to the days of record players and vacuum tubes to hear the music! Whether we really need clock speeds as high as 300+khz is questionable but I do believe that improvements are still being made and the future of sound doesn't require all thru hole components or vacuum tubes to make progress towards clean clear reproduction of music.
Also been watching the Twilight Zone but wish they would start the series with the Outer Limits.
My take on what John espouses is that he seems to say that the ultimate audio electronics is vacuum tube based, second and where he works is solid state devices and worst is integrated circuits of any kind including opamps. So in his eyes we have been going backwards since the 50's it would seem and audio reproduction is moving in the wrong direction. This is where I think the majority of us disagree, that we need to return to the days of record players and vacuum tubes to hear the music! Whether we really need clock speeds as high as 300+khz is questionable but I do believe that improvements are still being made and the future of sound doesn't require all thru hole components or vacuum tubes to make progress towards clean clear reproduction of music.
Scott,
Also been watching the Twilight Zone but wish they would start the series with the Outer Limits.
I have all of both on DVD it just seems special over the air, but wish they would throw in Night Gallery I don't think all seasons of that are available. Karen Black becoming the jungle demon was great and Orson Welles narrating Silent Snow Secret Snow is not to be missed.
My wife is watching probably the biggest one on another channel Star Trek and all spinoffs in order this will take weeks literally.
Last edited:
That is definitely old age we both scratched our heads over the Scotty on trial for murder one but I know I saw it, didn't I?
?? No, you also don't need one to tell you that you are deaf when you don't. How about you get it right in your favorite seat and then simply switch with someone and ask them what they hear, everything else is a waste of time and effort IMHO.
There is the crux, do you see what you did there? The subject heard a difference, but the test failed to recognize it. Of course that is complete nonsense. If the subject could not identify the difference unsighted, then s/he clearly did not hear it. The test did not fail, the subject failed to demonstrate a claimed ability. Now if you want to pursue the question of why the person cannot hear something without peeking, under some conditions, then there are many avenues to explore, and of course it is possible that the conditions of the test contributed to the failure. However, jumping to the conclusion that the test is more flawed than the subject shows a deep bias.
I thought you said Ludwig already tried that in his mastering room and found people couldn't reliably hear at first?
I understand exactly what I said. I was referring to cases where there there might be a problem with a test. It seemed like it would be quite obvious to anybody there are many cases where tests work well.
May I ask if I would be incorrect to infer from your comments that you don't hear distortion or dither noise types? If so, could it be that believing your own ears is at the crux of your own bias?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.