Funny about this topic is, that it is not a discussion about measurements and how to do them, but in fact a discussion about psychoacoustics.
And of course it should at first be a discussion about the way to get valid results in the field of psychoacoustics.
I can understand to a certain degree why syn08 is laughing about some parts of the audio (or maybe better, the highend) industry.
We did not our best job in trying to find a scientific basis for the mentioned correlation of hearing and measurement.
But on the other hand, for instance John Curl did think about it, and presented the theory of the 7th harmonic.
Did somebody try to find a scientific verification for that theory? Afair no, nobody tried, but a lot of people "knew" that JC must have been wrong; just based on some psychoacoustic experiments other people have done elsewhere and normally done with questionable scientific methods, especially in regard to our questions herein.
So i´d swear, if somebody would invest some time to establish a series of listening tests that hold up to the scientific level syn08 is talking about, and taking into account the criticism earlier tests got, then in the end, he could find something new.
Wishes
And of course it should at first be a discussion about the way to get valid results in the field of psychoacoustics.
I can understand to a certain degree why syn08 is laughing about some parts of the audio (or maybe better, the highend) industry.
We did not our best job in trying to find a scientific basis for the mentioned correlation of hearing and measurement.
But on the other hand, for instance John Curl did think about it, and presented the theory of the 7th harmonic.
Did somebody try to find a scientific verification for that theory? Afair no, nobody tried, but a lot of people "knew" that JC must have been wrong; just based on some psychoacoustic experiments other people have done elsewhere and normally done with questionable scientific methods, especially in regard to our questions herein.
So i´d swear, if somebody would invest some time to establish a series of listening tests that hold up to the scientific level syn08 is talking about, and taking into account the criticism earlier tests got, then in the end, he could find something new.
Wishes
Jakob2 said:
No, because double blind/ABX testing is generally not accepted by the Gifted People as a valid investigative method. Therefore whatever result a double blind/ABX test is going to provide, it is going to be sooner or later contested. We had a great example around, related to the CD/SACD debate:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128488&highlight=
If anybody knows another general accepted method to validate subjective results, speak up.
On the other side, I would kindly remind you that science is not a democracy. You are not innocent/right until proven guilty/wrong but the other way around, and the burden to produce acceptable proof is on the asserter.
Anyone can google their own 7th harmonic info. Just try!
ABX is worthless to me. It can't separate Coke from Pepsi, either, I'm told. The resolution is too low. I tried it 30 years ago, and wrote about it and personally debated with Lipshitz et al, and just about everybody in the business. I've done my share.
ABX is worthless to me. It can't separate Coke from Pepsi, either, I'm told. The resolution is too low. I tried it 30 years ago, and wrote about it and personally debated with Lipshitz et al, and just about everybody in the business. I've done my share.
Once I was filming art students at work. i was interested in one student's work and attempted to get her to comment on her work. She was shy and didn't want to be on camera but she did say, "I prefer to let my art speak for it self". I was thinking fair enough when the tutor who was listening came down on her like a ton of bricks. He basically said she would not get anywhere in the art world unless she had something intelligent to say about her works. I thought it harsh at the time but now I see he was giving her very good advice.
I think there are parallels between the art world and high end audio. Now that measurements no longer define goodness, both are subjective.
I think there are parallels between the art world and high end audio. Now that measurements no longer define goodness, both are subjective.
Joshua_G said:
Deciding to use a component or layout that measures the same as another but sounds better is quite logical as you are in a sense still using the scientific method. You are just substituting one measuring device for another, in this case your ears. Now if we all had calibrated ears there wouldn't be any debate as we would all know which was best.
OK .... you also need a strong believe (be it right or wrong) in your design and the market power, so that finally only the commercial success sounds good to your buyers ...
To come back to the original topic (when the discussion was about MC headamp topologies):
Didn't Scott Wurcer mention a very important point (half a year ago), that e.g. the MC cartridge itself already produces much much more PIM than any other part of the chain (including the head amp) ?
IMO the speaker is also completely masked out of the discussion, because it easily can produce phase distortions in the uS range.
So why strive for the ultimate in such a small detail of the chain, when other parts of the reproduction chain are still full of errors and drawbacks and can be considered technologically way back in the stone age ?
Sounds for me like optimizing the analog front end of an iPod for unmeasurable distortion or the like ...
fredex said:
Deciding to use a component or layout that measures the same as another but sounds better is quite logical as you are in a sense still using the scientific method. You are just substituting one measuring device for another, in this case your ears. Now if we all had calibrated ears there wouldn't be any debate as we would all know which was best.
Agreed.
Human ears and listening are further measuring devices. I used here the term "science" in the meaning Syn08 applies to it.
SY said:
SY, I know that much
Just trying to find a colloquial language for anybody to understand. To be entirely correct, I should call a double blind test a "finite Markov process" test..I was about to ask why is high end audio the only industry (that I am aware of) not accepting double blind testing as an objective evaluation method?
Not when I intend to produce gear for my own use …
This is so, of course.
For two main reasons:
1. With all the flaws of cartridges and speakers, the quality of the amplifiers has great impact on the sound of the entire setup. Also, the higher the quality of the cartridge and the speakers, the difference between different amps will be more pronounced.
2. Speakers manufacturers are to take care of the quality of the speakers, amps manufacturers are to take care of the quality of amps.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.