GRollins said:
Please speak to SY not me, you won't find any such quotes from me. I have never had such an unexplained experience. Again, please pick your protocal I'm not attached to ABX, only condition is either outcome MUST be possible (no peeking). Just too much to lose. Charles Hansen stated here on this board that he could tell the difference between two batches of (Resitas?) resistors in his attenuators almost instantly. So come and do it at the next BA.
As for nanotubes, the scientific community seems as desperate and prone to hubris these days as anyone else.
I believe that Charles Hansen is correct, and he does NOT have to 'prove' it to you. I am still trying to get SY to try some precision resistors that I gave him to try. I HOPE they work for him, as there are plenty more where they came from. For the record, I use older Resistas (made in Germany) when I can, and newer Resistas (Vishay) where I need to. I like Resistas as good or better than almost any resistor type. Naked Vishays are too expensive and delicate for my taste, BUT they may actually be better sounding. Standard Vishays put me off.
janneman said:
Imho, it is fine to have tracks that have measureable differences. However, that alone does not tell us at all if said differences are actually audible. There are three separate and discrete reasons that this may be so, and they may all be present to varying degrees or not:
- the spectra of the differences are not audible
- the equipment playing back the differences masks, or is otherwise insufficiently capable of reproducing the differences
- the source material masks the measurable differences
Imho, many of the "ABX" tests may suffer from one or more of these issues. This limits the "generalizability" (is that a word?) of the tests beyond the specific test itself.
It would be amusing to "difference" the two digital files, and see what the "difference" sounds like... I don't think I have any software that will do this properly - wonder if anyone here does?
edit: well now, that diffmaker thingie claims to do just this... I'll be interested to see how it does comparing two versions (pressings) of the same pieces... should be amusing.
_-_-bear
John, probably in April after we move- at the moment, my lab facilities are limited by being in a temporary apartment. If you'll recall, my departure from the Bay Area was much faster than I had planned...
I did use some resistors that looked just like those many years ago in a PAS preamp modification. If memory serves, they went into the plate circuits of the phono stage and were pretty quiet. Very pretty visually, too.
I did use some resistors that looked just like those many years ago in a PAS preamp modification. If memory serves, they went into the plate circuits of the phono stage and were pretty quiet. Very pretty visually, too.
scott wurcer said:
This thread seems to be growing at about three pages per day, so it's probably about a hunnert-n'-'lebenty-seven pages back now, but seems to me you posted something about some headphones and hearing things and Bear asked you to take it a little further.
I don't know how hubris fits in regarding nanotubes. If you take Scientific American or can get to a copy of the January issue, take a look. Note that Scientific American is separate and distinct from Stereophile, Absolute Sound, or any of the audio magazines. They're just reporting the results of an experiment:
"When an audio-frequency electric current was applied to stretchable, flexible transparent films of 10-nanometer-thick carbon nanotubes, physicists [...] unexpectedly discovered they could make sounds as loud as commercial speakers."
Hubris? Possibly.
(Fifties-style melodramatic voice intoning, "There are some things man was not meant to know!")
SHAZAAM!
(Smell of singed Grey...)
But from where I sit, it sounds like a new planar driver technology being born. Probably expensive as hell; no, they don't say how much the sheet costs. Probably lo-fi, though that might be fixable with a little R&D. And, last but not least, no, they don't say how it works. Personally, that's the part that's itching me. I want to know what makes the bloody thing tick.
Grey
P.S.: (Only one P.S. this time...promise.) The Scientific American writeup references Nano Letters. I scrounged around a bit and came up with the original:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/nl802750z
Some of the stuff at Nano Letters will come up and some won't (subscription only, it seems), but this one seems to come up okay--at least it did for me.
Resistas
Happy birthday John C,
Speaking of resistors, most have recommended the old holco's I believe for some of the HCA 3500 mods, and some suggested Caddocks in a few places, would it be just as good to use the Resistas or Dales? Are we looking for quiet, or are the different makes going to create different sound?
Thanks again,
Matt
Happy birthday John C,
Speaking of resistors, most have recommended the old holco's I believe for some of the HCA 3500 mods, and some suggested Caddocks in a few places, would it be just as good to use the Resistas or Dales? Are we looking for quiet, or are the different makes going to create different sound?
Thanks again,
Matt
Jan,
the method you have proposed suggests to use worse parameter device (soundcard) to measure better parameter instruments. In case I want to measure a difference between CD and SACD by soundcard, I have to amplify output signal of these players, like in this attached image.
Remember that a lot of differences occurs at very very low levels.
the method you have proposed suggests to use worse parameter device (soundcard) to measure better parameter instruments. In case I want to measure a difference between CD and SACD by soundcard, I have to amplify output signal of these players, like in this attached image.
Remember that a lot of differences occurs at very very low levels.
Attachments
bear said:
Bear,
The point is that many here maintain that they can detect differences that are unmeasurable. Now we have a case were differences ARE easily measurable, and audible as well. So, those Golden Ears that can hear so deep down should be able to identify the track that has the sousa band mixed in with one hand behind their back and two fingers up their nose.
This is their chance to show us that they are better than most of us inthe hearing department. If I, deep down, were convinced that I was such a GE, I wouldn't hesitate a uSec and show all those objectivists up. But none of them has the guts.
Jan Didden
Jan, I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but it is extremely bad form to harass us about a dead end test. We develop our listening opinions over years of listening, usually casual listening, not A-B comparisons. We have the motive of progressing in our understanding of what makes audio sound its best, and the disincentive of having to pay extra for something that doesn't make a real difference. We are NOT children. In fact, many here debating with you are over the hill, as far as being at our best, age-wise, but we can still hear and appreciate differences.
Personally, I found decades ago that I could not easily pass a double blind test, yet I can still discern differences. I have researched it for years, and debated with just everyone involved in developing ABX and other tests. I find it next to useless, just like I would find a blind wine comparison next to useless, FOR ME. IF SY wants to give me a bottle of wine with a fancy label and GALLO (a cheap American Wine) inside, and fools me. So be it. You wouldn't do that to me SY, would you?
But then, can I trust myself or even any of you? Many here think that I am some sort of 'crank' and a 'showman'.
By the way SY, your feedback on the resistors was about as weak as I have ever heard from a listening test. Didn't you say that you used some similar resistors to what I gave you, in a DYNA circuit as plate load resistors, years ago? That tells me nothing much, because you put large amounts of DC across the resistors, and they never have a zero crossing. I thought you were going to put them as a cartridge load at the input. That is the only place that makes sense to me. However, are you even sure that they were even the same brand ? Now, I say this to you because you are so adamant about our control of our own listening tests. We would do better than that, in any case.
Personally, I found decades ago that I could not easily pass a double blind test, yet I can still discern differences. I have researched it for years, and debated with just everyone involved in developing ABX and other tests. I find it next to useless, just like I would find a blind wine comparison next to useless, FOR ME. IF SY wants to give me a bottle of wine with a fancy label and GALLO (a cheap American Wine) inside, and fools me. So be it. You wouldn't do that to me SY, would you?
But then, can I trust myself or even any of you? Many here think that I am some sort of 'crank' and a 'showman'.
By the way SY, your feedback on the resistors was about as weak as I have ever heard from a listening test. Didn't you say that you used some similar resistors to what I gave you, in a DYNA circuit as plate load resistors, years ago? That tells me nothing much, because you put large amounts of DC across the resistors, and they never have a zero crossing. I thought you were going to put them as a cartridge load at the input. That is the only place that makes sense to me. However, are you even sure that they were even the same brand ? Now, I say this to you because you are so adamant about our control of our own listening tests. We would do better than that, in any case.
I didn't give you any feedback on those resistors, good or bad. As I said, I won't have my lab set up until April; I'm living in what is essentially a hotel room until then. I just noted that I've used resistors like that before (probably 1979 or so).
If you don't like plate circuits, I'm certainly open to putting them across the input of my phono stage.
If you don't like plate circuits, I'm certainly open to putting them across the input of my phono stage.
janneman said:
This exactly one of the difficult situation where many solutions are existing. I blieve that it has to be tested for aural impact.
Here is the strategy I am using and that I intend to test when I have my parts finished.
I am using a clean ground around every amplifier PCB. This ground has no signal currents flowing in and is there to terminate I/O filters and shields.
This ground is connected to the chassis in many points. The chassis is connected to the protective earth with one connection.
The signal ground ( made of a collection of hybrid grounds to avoid LF high current flowing in low level input grounds) is connected to the protective earth via a ground breaker BEFORE the connection of the clean ground.
The unballanced input line is made of a very good twisted pair shielded with very good transfer impedance. The shield is connected to the clean ground.
In this way the RFI ( hf) picked up by the shield or by the unavoidable earth loop is diverted from the equipment. Different transfer impedances generate different amount of coupling to the pair from unavoidable interference flowing on the shield , so perhaps different sound !!!
The presence of the clean ground allows to use and terminate efficiently a shielded loudspeaker cable. Don't forget that if there is RFI the pigtail of the shield re-radiates a lot and can defeate many experiments
Unavoidable Low frequency hum will not flow in the signal ground because of the ground breaker.
Another approach is to use a transformer input like very well analyzed in Jensen paper's.
To me the complexity of an audio ground system with very high gain and potential audio rectification makes it very challenging to know for shure the origin of a different sounding: is it due to the material of the cable or component or to a different geometry so pick up?
JPV
john curl said:Jan, I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but it is extremely bad form to harass us about a dead end test. We develop our listening opinions over years of listening, usually casual listening, not A-B comparisons. We have the motive of progressing in our understanding of what makes audio sound its best, and the disincentive of having to pay extra for something that doesn't make a real difference. We are NOT children. In fact, many here debating with you are over the hill, as far as being at our best, age-wise, but we can still hear and appreciate differences.
Personally, I found decades ago that I could not easily pass a double blind test, yet I can still discern differences. I have researched it for years, and debated with just everyone involved in developing ABX and other tests. I find it next to useless, just like I would find a blind wine comparison next to useless, FOR ME. IF SY wants to give me a bottle of wine with a fancy label and GALLO (a cheap American Wine) inside, and fools me. So be it. You wouldn't do that to me SY, would you?
But then, can I trust myself or even any of you? Many here think that I am some sort of 'crank' and a 'showman'.
By the way SY, your feedback on the resistors was about as weak as I have ever heard from a listening test. Didn't you say that you used some similar resistors to what I gave you, in a DYNA circuit as plate load resistors, years ago? That tells me nothing much, because you put large amounts of DC across the resistors, and they never have a zero crossing. I thought you were going to put them as a cartridge load at the input. That is the only place that makes sense to me. However, are you even sure that they were even the same brand ? Now, I say this to you because you are so adamant about our control of our own listening tests. We would do better than that, in any case.
John, I don't want to belabor this any further, because anybody can read these posts and draw his/her own conclusions. I also am not attacking you personally.
But you or anybody else can argue until they are blue in the face but it doesn't change the situation. That situation is that many here want us to believe that they can reliably and correctly pick out the sound difference between two types of wire or two types of capacitors. A subtle difference that cannot be measured so far. And most would agree that that requires quite a deep ability to discern subtle audible differences. Fine.
Now I just ask to listen to two tracks, that are shown to differ in that in one track, a whole sousa orchester has been mixed in. A difference that can easily be measured. This is not a blind test. You know what the difference is. You can even listen to the difference. As long, as often as you would like. In the comfort of your home. All those arguments that always pop up with BT's are gone. Just tell us which one has the sousa band in. You can do that, can't you?
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Jan,
I do understand what your logic is on this issue.
However, I think you have only part of the story. Which, is almost as good as having none of it in practice. Well, it is better than none.
Let me explain. I wish to reference Dr. Earl Geddes, and D.E.L. Shorter before him... along those lines you might be able to never detect the Sousa band, IF it is low enough down in level (and I will download it and try to see if it is audible on my system or not) since the spectra of said Sousa band is of the type and nature that is simply not readily detectable as being "annoying" (to grossly simplify the matter) to the ear!
It is not a matter of being "better" at hearing at all. Although some may or may not be better in various ways. When I was less than 30 I could reliably hear above 25kHz. that made most "hi-fi" systems not sound that good if they had response up there, since it was usually crap. Made some things very difficult to be around, things like saws and TVs... can't hear up there anymore...
Hearing is not a sampling process. Not in the human specie anyhow.
We hear as the result of a continuous processing over time of raw sound "data", that data is being interpreted in real time. To grossly simplify, the "purer" the data coming in is, the less processing the brain needs to do in order to interpret. Therefore more interpretation can be applied per any given "segment" of time. This means that what one "hears" is a variable, no matter what the technical ability of the ear itself, and depends on all sorts of attendent factors.
A good example of "hidden" sound in a recording is much simpler than the buried Sousa band. I have a CD of George Bolet playing Rachmanianoff and Tchaikovsky. In one of the movements, someone in the orchestra apparently whacks a music stand! Try to hear it. I guarantee that unless you "hit it" just right, you won't hear it. Yet when you do, it is glaring as a bright light. Is it there, or is it not? Why can't you hear it reliably every time?
The goal of this thing we do is to convey the sound recorded so that it is a "natural" as possible - that is more precisely that the brain can and will interpret it as nearly as possible as "the real thing" and spend the minimum amount of effort/processing in the interpretation of that sound at any given point in time.
Which is why there is no one "answer" and no "measurement" that can capture this factor for us. Either it sounds like the primordial sound that we have been programmed to recognize quickly, or it does not. Small and large order things all play a role. The only question is how much and which ones can you control, effect and minimize.
_-_-bear
I, for one, am not trying to convince anyone.
I hear what I hear and I couldn't care less whether others believe it or not.
It is by listening that I choose components to my sound system, be it loudspeakers, amplifiers or cables.
Also, I don't know whether the differences I hear are measurable or not and I don't care much about it, since I choose components for my sound system in order to enjoy listening to music, not in order to perform any measurements.
It only amuses me that others deny my experience.
I don't listen to what others want me to.
I listen to what I care about and to what is useful to me.
I don't need Diffmaker or any such thing in order to choose components to my system.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.