Everybody uses some form of evaluation of their audio systems - even you
For him his technique gives him results which I'm sure he has evaluated in other ways & with other people. Probably over time he has changed his approach as he learned what to listen for & uncovered new aspects in the sound or more revealing systems. Does this mean his previous testing was wrong - perhaps or perhaps he has refined his methodology?
Is there some rule on here that everyone has to be 100% correct all the time or is there room for people to learn?
When you do it, it is so obvious that I can't miss it & I strike back (as I do with others) If you are going to try it on with me expect to get the same treatment back
Oh dear, I really am a horrible human being, ain't I 🙄
Mark tests for himself - not a proof for others
PMA's listening tests were meant to show 'proof' about some aspect he believed was inaudible using forum blind tests
Two very different goals & hence test methodology.
We've been through all this before & PMA already agreed that his test was flawed as he assumed something about people's equipment which proved to be incorrect & that alone invalidated the results (a she agreed). Should an examination of his test not have happened & this factor which invalidated it not been discovered - is that what you prefer? Should the "proof" of inaudibility be left even though the test was flawed in a major way?
This is the point people have tried repeatedly to make, his tests were never meant to be to the standard of "The studies linked to are using an accepted methodology for perceptual testing when papers are being published & wish to be included in the scientific arena"
To draw meaningful conclusions which can be generalised outside of personal conclusions (what passes for "Proof" on audio forums) , one needs to use meaningful tests. This meaningfulness is of a far lower standard than needed for scientific publication but there is still a bar that needs to be reached for the tests to be meaningful
Again, you seem to miss the fact that PMA agreed that his test was discovered to be flawed but only when it underwent some examination.
Are you making a plea for this not to have happened
Last edited:
No, there is nothing wrong with examination, but it still doesn't make the results valueless in the context, granted it wouldn't find it's way into a scientific publication, but a little perspective is called for, not outright trashing
I'm not going to continue much further with this line of the thread - it's going nowhere (you want to have your cake & eat it) - if these were measurements found to be flawed would you still be making a plea that there is something of value in them?
but I guess I must be a horrible human being after all - there, I learned something 😱
Last edited:
The other side is that each time a sensory test that doesn't lead to the desired result, your "team" jumps through the roof in attempting to discredit the results.
Just look what kind of reaction (Jakob(x) in person included) generated the Meyer and Moran test published in the AES Journal. Exactly the same tactic all over; nitpicking on some (usually hearsay) details (which anyway do not invalidate the results) then, based on that, attempting to discredit the entire test. So there's nothing new under the sun. Meyer and Moran went so far as to personally jump in (big mistake if you ask me, the "team" loves character assassination) and try to streamline some of the crap perpetrated regarding their work, to as much success as some good engineers on this forum are trying to streamline the BS pumped 24/7 by some characters.
Links provided upon request, but a Meyer+Moran+AES search in Google will provide plenty of fun (or not, thereof) reading.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what Jan (and others) stated on this topic, no wonder for a Stereophile article. I'll let Jan to jump in and clarify this, enough said that Baxandall's work was done on a grossly non linear (open loop) amplifier. 22 years ago, when Jan published the article, such gross amplifiers were probably quite common, not today, by any metric. Your cellphone class D junk has likely less than 0.01% distortions and no high order harmonics to speak of.
Last edited:
Are you sure it isn´t related to distortion (cancellation)? In other words, could the answer be in the intricacies of the combination of amp and speaker?
The late Eduardo de Lima put forth some hypotheses related to second harmonic distortion cancellation in the system (amp+speaker) that in my opinion are worth further exploration by you bright fellows:
"Why Single Ended Tube Amplifiers?"
AUDIOPAX - Technical Articles
Please don´t be put off by his choice of SE tube amplifiers. This might be the easy way to achieve useful distortion cancellation?
In my opinion the article is a must-read and contains promising ideas and concepts.
Mark did reply to me more than once over the course of a year +- but never addressed those aspects I've asked before so I asked again, hoping that he gets it this time.
That's the moment you were thinking about Bode plot versus Nyquist.
That's the moment you're confused.
And that's the moment where you thought people know less than you do. It is exactly this assumption that always create miss communication, where I understand you but you don't understand me.
The Math of the Nyquist might be difficult even for people with my background (which I believe yours too). But if you really do build amplifiers, this can become easy. You can EASILY build two amplifiers with different number of poles yet with exactly the same PM/GM numbers, as Mathematically explained by syn08, which you can read in many books/publications.
When we understand the complications (and more), it is time to 'simplify', and here you might find that you were right that 'I was doing less'.
BTW, I was talking about dynamic conditions of a ready made amplifier, not static condition (which is what PM/GM numbers are).
There is no disconnect. 'Measure well' is subjective. What do you measure?
In an imperfect system, you will always face trade-offs. The less perfect, the more trade-off. I will not blame people who like euphonic sound caused by H2. Not because I don't like it (I do), but because there is usually trade off somewhere else. For example, okay, the vocal is good, but how about 'speed/detail/separation' when you have to listen to orchestra for example?
In small speaker design, most people like the 'bump' at low end to give the effect of 'bass-capable' to the actually small bandwidth speaker. There is nothing wrong with that. Here, perception is more important than 'measurement' (from technical point of view, it is not flat, so must be wrong).
Room response for one.
Get speakers with better transient response.
If small speakers don't produce low octaves well, either live with it (instead of forcing it to distort more) or augment it with bass speakers.
You see what I have said, the less perfect your system the more trade-offs you have to make. In a close to perfect systems, room responses should have been addressed, speakers have better transient response (I doubt everyone strongly agree with this one but I do) even distortion is below known threshold.
This is probably where we differ (but I don't blame other's preference or taste or decision). In a close to perfect system, wide bandwidth speaker is a must, but there is time when we do need to use very small speaker (e.g. at work). My small speaker is designed together with the amplifier. It is a not a sealed system, not a normal vented system.
Wait, I think I misunderstood you... What do you mean with better transient response? (I'm often 'miss-tuned' with the proper terminologies)
You asked questions and I gave you answers.
Who doesn't make trade-offs? Do you have a point you are trying to make?
Expect small speakers to perform like small speakers. You don't like it? Too bad. That's life.
BTW, where and when did you survey to get "most people like the 'bump' at low end"?
Yes. I asked Bob, but you can answer too, but you must read him too to make sure that we are in tune so you can understand the points I made.
First point is clear: in bad systems there are more trade-offs.
Second point: if the system is so bad that nothing can make you happy, at least make a good trade-off such as increasing the H2 so you can enjoy Norah Jones, a girl with a guitar, or whatever.
Simply by looking at the majority of designs, observing people preference etc.
I have access, but that's not the point. The point is, I mentioned how an amplifier with high H2 might have troubles playing orchestra with good speed/detail/separation, then you gave 'solution' which is "Get speakers with better transient response". Now I want to discuss deeply, how a speaker with better transient response can solve the issue mentioned.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.