It seems with my earlier hypothesis I may have been over-thinking this 😀 The most reasonable reason @JC isn't doing blind listening tests is they don't give results that suit him. When all differences disappear then how to make progress?
Are you by any chance being ironic here?
I might suggest that if the differences disappear in a blind test, then surely they could not have been that significant to begin with. There are a lot of lofty claims made around here that would make it seem like you're disabled if you can't "hear the difference" and yet the differences have this nasty habit of disappearing in blind tests.
I have been part of a group that, among other things, is doing live video processing on minimally invasive surgical video for subjective evaluation by surgeons. According to our data, surgeons love sharpness and edge enhance. They also love lunch - the subjective evaluations of the same filters are improved after lunch.
I don't follow. The McGurk effect shows a significant difference (between two consonants) depending on whether the video is watched alongside the audio, or not.
Instantiation of these claims would be the necessary first step ISTM. Name names then we can all delve into the details.
I'm not sure I understand the context, probably missing your point. My audio equipment doesn't speak to me visually 🙂.
Yeah, I could go find one but I'm lazy... it shows up often in threads on capacitors, op-amp rolling, clocks. It's not really worth delving into the details. Yes, I just made a generalization without the proper supporting evidence. 🙂
Could be I'm over-egging the pudding but that video to me demonstrates how what we hear changes seemingly quite dramatically in the context of visual stimulus compared to having no visual stimulus. Yeah the amp isn't going to be mouthing obscenities at you I hope 🙂 So perhaps you're saying that differences due to static visuals are likely going to be less significant than differences due to dynamically changing visuals? Or perhaps dynamically changing visuals which are highly correlated with the audio?
You and me both eh? 😀
You guys can never shut up about me, can you? '-)
I have passed double blind tests with excellent results, shocking those who tested me on one occasion. However, when I tried the SPIEGEL BOX ABX, I found that everything that I tried sounded the same. We traced this partially to the relays used in the Spiegel Box, but I also realized that I did not hear differences as easily with an ABX double blind test, so I have come to dismiss it. I have written about this extensively in TAA between 1978-1981 or so. I have put up many of my comments here in the last few months.
Now, I am 77 years old, and while I can still hear well enough without a hearing aid (as many of my associates use) I KNOW that I do not hear as well as I did when I was 25-45 when I did some of my best work. I tolerate digital TV too much to not realize this. However, the reason that I don't like ABX testing is that the music is always changing and the identification of what one is listening to tends to get confused, so I prefer a process where there are identified sources, but they can be just
A,B.C if you want. Then I can probably still tell you which circuit sounds better after a short listening comparison. I certainly could, 40 years ago, and I had a girlfriend who could hear differences even better than me at the time. Today, I usually take longer with a new design, such as my IC based Parasound products, keeping it in the system for awhile, and forming an unconscious impression of the product's 'signature'.
I am always amazed how I can tolerate so much audio processing through the Sequerra Met-7's. Give me WATT-1's and I would not watch as much TV, it would just be too annoying to listen to TV sound. In fact, this Sat night I had a similar experience when I fired up my Wilson Sasha speakers with my new JC-5 (overbiased), Blowtorch pre and a vacuum tube Marantz 10 tuner, and my ears started to hurt. Program? Maybe, warm-up probably some, but it is annoying to fire up a sound system that costs 20 times as much as my daily system and get listening fatigue. I guess I can still hear differences.
I have passed double blind tests with excellent results, shocking those who tested me on one occasion. However, when I tried the SPIEGEL BOX ABX, I found that everything that I tried sounded the same. We traced this partially to the relays used in the Spiegel Box, but I also realized that I did not hear differences as easily with an ABX double blind test, so I have come to dismiss it. I have written about this extensively in TAA between 1978-1981 or so. I have put up many of my comments here in the last few months.
Now, I am 77 years old, and while I can still hear well enough without a hearing aid (as many of my associates use) I KNOW that I do not hear as well as I did when I was 25-45 when I did some of my best work. I tolerate digital TV too much to not realize this. However, the reason that I don't like ABX testing is that the music is always changing and the identification of what one is listening to tends to get confused, so I prefer a process where there are identified sources, but they can be just
A,B.C if you want. Then I can probably still tell you which circuit sounds better after a short listening comparison. I certainly could, 40 years ago, and I had a girlfriend who could hear differences even better than me at the time. Today, I usually take longer with a new design, such as my IC based Parasound products, keeping it in the system for awhile, and forming an unconscious impression of the product's 'signature'.
I am always amazed how I can tolerate so much audio processing through the Sequerra Met-7's. Give me WATT-1's and I would not watch as much TV, it would just be too annoying to listen to TV sound. In fact, this Sat night I had a similar experience when I fired up my Wilson Sasha speakers with my new JC-5 (overbiased), Blowtorch pre and a vacuum tube Marantz 10 tuner, and my ears started to hurt. Program? Maybe, warm-up probably some, but it is annoying to fire up a sound system that costs 20 times as much as my daily system and get listening fatigue. I guess I can still hear differences.
Last edited:
The future is surely that digital will reign. Som much that there will be no need for a diamond input or line stage etc. Look at Lyngdorfs latest products - no line level circuitry - just a PCM -> PWM converter with the gain control implemented by varying the voltage to the output bridge. Whats the stage-count for that? 0. Maybe one (1) - and for the whole system, not just for the "pre-amp". This is the end-station architecture. Less-is-more.
And it will be superior to anything made before. If we want the truth. Can you handle the truth? You want me on that wall.... 🙂
//
Last edited:
Well, I think I'm one of the disabled or at least insufficiently trained, nothing wrong with that. While Pavel and others can hear the difference on the foobar abx test, I could hear a difference only on pure sine and simply could not reliably hear a difference in the musical clip on Can you tell original file from tube amp record? - test.
I didn't say that there are no differences between ANY two components. First, I don't believe there is anything that is audible but unmeasurable yet to be discovered. Second, I don't think there is some intrinsic quality to ICs that makes them "sound bad" as some here seem to believe.
If you want to call me deaf... well, there's a good statistical chance that my hearing is better than yours. I'd guess I am around half your age and had a perfectly normal hearing test 2 years ago. I listen mostly through the same headphones Richard uses (HD800s).
The 7815 is lower output noise (150uV wideband) than the 317 (450 uV for c 15 V out). I use split transformer secondaries that I regulate and then combine - means you can use the same positive regulator for + and - rails at the cost of an additional BR (1 amp SMD device with snubbers).
In all my line stages, each opamp has a 22 Ohm resistor in series with each supply pin and a local 100 uF to ground plus the usual 0.1 etc.
Pathological, but it attenuates HF, localizes supply and load currents keeping hash off the rail. Since the loads are generally > say 2 k in an audio system and more like 10k the loss in headroom is marginal.
Seems to me low output impedance in an audio line stage might not necessarily be a good thing.
I don't doubt that visuals can help or influence what's heard. As far as McGurk, I just don't see how it applies unless you're watching music videos 🙂. It seems specific to the interpretation of speech.
It's another reason why sighted listening is flawed, IMO.
Anybody who thinks our hearing experience is not affected within the context of a simultaneous visual experience is living in la la land. The two are intimately linked. It’s why high end amplifiers look the way they do and conversely if you want to get to the truth of sound differences you have to remove the visual stimulus.
That said, I enjoy my music most during the consumption of the second half of a good bottle of Malbec or Merlot.
John,
Industry baron that you are, perhaps you need to contact Stirling Trayle and cut an accommodation deal to come over and adjust those nice Wilson speakers of yours, to get rid of the listener fatigue factor. A lot of listener fatigue is from the out of phase artifacts from speakers not set quite right. You'd be surprised at the difference.
I can locate sound source position with one ear in 3D space. Do we have established measurements in relation to 3D quality of sound reproduction?
Good. What is to be measured to show a recording sounds flat or has a good holographic 3D quality. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.