The listeners could not detect the sound if the high-frequency content (denoted as "LFC" i.e. low-frequency-cut) was presented alone.
But there was a difference between the reproduction of the low-frequency content (denoted as "HFC" i.e. high-frequency-cut) alone and the fullrange sound reproduction.
More like mid priced and high priced.
Don't forget the famous "night & day difference". 😉
You haven't asked Markw4 how many trials were done when he posted claims of DACs sounding different, have you?
You left out Tournesol2.Wait.... oh no..... SAM2? Am I mmerrill100? Are we both part of the Jakob(x) collective? Do me a favor and go to the mirror... do you see me?
Is that your opinion or excerpts of some study?
Yesterday the local audio society gave a lecture on vacuum tube audio. I was impressed what the tubes sounded like. They even made CD playback enjoyable. There was no obvious distortion, so I suspect it was the LACK of some sort of distortion that is usually present in typical solid state amps that made it impressive. This is what we should concentrate on, e.g. how to make solid state sound as good as tubes. (at least some tube products)
Makes sense.
Wait.... oh no..... SAM2? Am I mmerrill100? Are we both part of the Jakob(x) collective? Do me a favor and go to the mirror... do you see me?
Science is also about reading, rejecting, finding interesting and following up. Depending on the specific question and the intended audience, I think lay people can do a valid ABX, with some instruction. I know you and I have respectfully agreed to disagree, so I'm not trying to reopen this... you can have the last word... I won't follow up.
Haha, thanks SAM2 - I'll let mmerrill10 have the last word 😀
I agree about training (but that's never mentioned by those who push ABX on forums). Instead we hear people make the statement "your eyes will be opened by ABX"
People make the assumption that the ABX test will give the correct result of what is ACTUALLY audible without peeking. They seem to be adverse to investigating how accurate & sensitive is the test itself.
I suggest that if known audible differences were used as a test of the ABX test itself, we might find that the test, in the way that it is usually run on audio forums, is actually a very undiscriminating way of determining audible differences for lots of people.
In fact Jakob2 & I have long suggested using positive controls in ABX tests as a means of evaluating just how sensitive that particular ABX test was
I am quite sure it is in fact the addition of masking and distortion that is not harmful for human hearing and that you like when listening the tubes. Less transparency and less resolution may make sound more pleasing, sometimes (Telefunken Bajazzo same league). Subjectively it still sounds like clarity. BTW, I have no problems listening to digital (though I had, 10 - 15 years ago) and I am sure it is a result of improvement of my home audio chain. You should think about it. And I can use both tube or solid state preamps, the later either discrete JFET design or with opamps. It is rather about speakers, listening room, power amplifier and sound source.
The funny thing is ‘nitpicking’ (grooming) in monkeys was one of the triggers for ASMR........maybe that’s the draw here? The nitpicking that is 😀
Either answer should have sufficed
Good analogy, I believe.
I've used another one before - about the emotional impact of standing in front of a Van Gogh painting (for instance) as opposed to looking at a reproduction of it - the small details of seeing the depth of paint applied & seeing the actual brush strokes used - small things particularly when examined in a specific part of the painting (which I equate to ABX) but the effect on the whole painting & its visceral impact is hard to ignore
Last edited:
Many excuses can be put forth as to why I find tubes interesting. I have tried for more than 50 years to make solid state sound significantly better than the best tube products, yet I seem to have failed in some ways. If I were to look for it in measurements, I might look to Hirata distortion first, but I am sure there is more. I find that trusting my ears is the best way to evaluate audio, just like tasting should be used for differences in food or wine. All else is hiding differences through ABX or rationalizations
Yes, I get that ASMR feeling when someone brushes my hair or plays with my hair (not when having it cut at hairdressers though). I reckon it's a reminder of infancy/childhood events/euphoria or my monkey past? 😀
But music playback sounding more realistic/clicking into place is not ASMR, for me - it's just that what I'm listening to seems to engage my interest more - even listening to familiar tracks
mountainman bob,
With reference to your post 23316, I think there may be a possibility that your current setup is quite sensitive to the influence of chorusing as used in studio production to give a mild (or not so mild) 3D spatial effect. It may also be that your eq settings are exacerbating this to the point where when you hear it, you cannot unhear it. Chorus effects are often applied to vocals or lead acoustic guitar to make them stand out in a stereo mix. Chorus was big back in the 80’s, and became ubiquitous to the point where a lot of folk can’t stand it. You may be one of those people .......
Chorus plays havoc with stereo summed to mono as well.
Or, I think that is what is being discussed ........ and what to me is the seemingly obvious finally sprung to mind.
ToS
Ok well imagine if that same sensation unexpectedly shows up when your listening to music......and it’s tuneable in/out of focus as in ‘repeatable’ and not just related to a certain track.
I’ve gotten it back 3 seperate times now after losing it to changes.....I really can’t say how or what/why except it seems phase related.
I had no idea what ASMR was until I started trying to figure this out....so no bias.
In fact over half the things I figure out in audio I had no idea existed b4 looking for explanations.
Ok, cool I’ll look into that aspect.
But as to ‘where a lot of folks can’t stand it..you may be one of those people’
I’m not saying this is bad.....quite the opposite, whatever ‘it’ is, it’s awesome.
Seems to come across better on newer hq recordings, but still does exist on older (good) recordings back to the late fifties early sixties.
Last edited:
I didn't mean it was just related to playing a particular track - I'm saying that it's a rightness in the playback of the audio system which evokes attention & interest. A lot of systems don't achieve this 'rightness of playback'
Indeed, I also would be interested in what is the underlying cause for this perceptually noticeable effect.
The journey is interesting
I like stereo chorus, and use it to add a tiny amount of extra dimensional space to my guitar sound. Actually, I have got three stereo chorus pedals, and often use to thicken up a multi-tap delay line. The best chorus is when it cannot heard until it is bypassed in the signal chain. A lot of studio multitrack recordings, are not very good, and phasing or smearing is quite common. Just a thought.
ToS
Post 23014 has the test file. I expect a normal listener with a good sound system in a large public space to score at least 80% correct.
Dans results are in his .txt file.
My differences to those of Dan's are here.
[/QUOTE]
The actual words used:
List 13
601. corn
602. stead
603. climb
604. elk
605. jig
606. hack
607. fold
608. pelt
609. grave
610. elm
611. thin
612. bean
613. dog
614. plead
615. hook
616. nice
617. soap
618. deaf
619. grape
620. tap
621. wean
622. smash
623. few
624. scuff
625. taint
626. ought
627. smooth
628. for
629. price
630. nag
631. side
632. made
633. fill
634. nip
635. hate
636. mush
637. mood
638. muff
639. moth
640. mop
641. my
642. bat
643. curb
644. gem
645. sled
646. owe
647. patch
648. pug
649. change
650. tip
Dans results are in his .txt file.
My differences to those of Dan's are here.
Code:
STAID/STEAD [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Wrong/Right[/COLOR]
ELK/ELEC
WEEN/WEAN [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This is OK[/COLOR]
FEW/VIEW
SCUFF/SCOFF
OUGHT/ART
MADE/MAID [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This is OK[/COLOR]
VAT/BAT [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Wrong/Right[/COLOR]
GEM/JEM [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This is OK[/COLOR]
OWE/OH [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This is OK[/COLOR]The actual words used:
List 13
601. corn
602. stead
603. climb
604. elk
605. jig
606. hack
607. fold
608. pelt
609. grave
610. elm
611. thin
612. bean
613. dog
614. plead
615. hook
616. nice
617. soap
618. deaf
619. grape
620. tap
621. wean
622. smash
623. few
624. scuff
625. taint
626. ought
627. smooth
628. for
629. price
630. nag
631. side
632. made
633. fill
634. nip
635. hate
636. mush
637. mood
638. muff
639. moth
640. mop
641. my
642. bat
643. curb
644. gem
645. sled
646. owe
647. patch
648. pug
649. change
650. tip
I think even if I invested in measuring equipment might not do the situation any justice......just as buying a table saw does not make one a cabinet maker.
I think I offered this once already but in case not I’ll offer it again......if there’s any measurement geeks within driving distance to the Apalachicola/Port st Joe FL area (cape San Blas) I make some bad*** bbq and would really love to put some numbers behind my subjectiveness.... Come on over!
100% here....
Attachments
Last edited:
The fact that it’s so across the board tends to make believe it’s not recording dependent.......just has to be a decent recording with clarity and depth.
Now it might be some sort of system induced chorus effect?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.