I think you're being pretty closed-minded about this Grey. Dismissing something without trying it?
Could it be that there is some line to be drawn here, and that the only difference is where people draw that line, not whether or not they draw it? You're casting this as "people who will dismiss something without trying it, vs. people who will not". I have just suggested something that you've dismissed, so clearly you are in the category of "people who will dismiss something without trying it".
Welcome to the real world.
Could it be that there is some line to be drawn here, and that the only difference is where people draw that line, not whether or not they draw it? You're casting this as "people who will dismiss something without trying it, vs. people who will not". I have just suggested something that you've dismissed, so clearly you are in the category of "people who will dismiss something without trying it".
Welcome to the real world.
bwaslo said:
And you, of course, have appointed yourself the Lord High Muckety-Muck...passer of judgment as to whether a given tweak or effect is on more equal or less equal footing...is that it? (Shades of Orwell's Animal Farm, here.)
I have no problem with you passing on the opportunity to try one thing or another. We all have limited time and have to make choices as to how to apply the twenty-four hours we have available.
A problem arises, however, when someone who doesn't think "X" will work presumes to criticize, mock, and condemn someone else who has chosen to pursue the question of whether "X" works or not.
That is not science. That's the arrogance of Science as Religion rearing its head once more.
Grey
EDIT: Andy, you condemn yourself with every word you write. I did not tell you not to try it, nor did I tell anyone else not to try it. I did not say that it wouldn't work. I did not say that anyone who tried it was delusional; following a manipulative guru. I simply gave reasons that I was unlikely to follow up on it. If you feel that it's worth the price, then by all means give it a shot.
No, it's usually mocking someone chasing something very unlikely and pursuing the question with all the technical rigor of a Creationist hunting fossils.
I don't think any Rationalist (least of all me) would criticize someone for setting up well-controlled listening tests of unlikely phenomena. Many will, however, mock someone claiming something unlikely on the basis of zero controlled testing, or worse, claiming rigorous testing when what was actually done was (cough, cough) not exactly or even vaguely controlled. I plead guilty to that (the mocking) and have certainly tried to explain to those who are interested how to make their tests rigorous.
Your comments about Darwin and peer review are 100% at odds with my experiences in the scientific community and 100% at odds with the historical facts, so far as scientists were concerned (theologians and the general public were a different matter). By the time that Mendel's work was rediscovered, Darwin's theory of speciation via selection was firmly established- Mendel just provided a quantitative way of expressing what everyone already knew, that children resembled their parents. His work was seen as confirming Darwin, of adding one more prop to a well-established and powerful theory.
Scientists love it when good evidence comes along that something they previously thought was wrong or incomplete.
Geez, are you trying to be arrogant or just coming off that way?
Yes, I indeed have appointed myself to be the person that makes up my mind and forms my opinion. And I reserve the right to express said opinion even if you don't think I'm qualified. Have you appointed yourself Lord High Whatever in charge of who gets to express his opinion. and when? You do seem to have a strong idea about under what conditions someone can discuss anything. (Shades of Dark Ages, there).
Have you noticed anyone here forbidding anyone else from trying whatever fool thing he wants for himself? Challenging something on technical grounds, or pointing out that there has yet to be any evidence to support some claim isn't Orwellian. The ability to infer likely outcomes from past evidence isn't something you can just dismiss like that.
If I say that, against all reason, that andy_c's tweak seems like a load of @$# (pun intended), I'll say it and even without trying it, horrors of horrors. And I hope you you don't mind, but I won't be waiting for your clearance on that!
GRollins said:
So you're genuinely keeping an "open", "scientific" mind about the value of doing #2's on the carpet then?
Bill,
I like your DiffMaker thingie.
At some point when I have a few extra "cycles" available, I'll try dumping in two different "pressings" of the same CD program material, and see what we get.
Earlier on I mentioned while in discourse with Jan that imho there is a big difference between a "distortion" that is unrelated to the musical program and that which is related.
I referred to the correlated case as an "aberration" from a "natural" (to use a broad term, relating to a non-reproduced and non-electro-mechanical perception of sound, generally speaking) sounding reproduction. A key point in my view is that if one views the entire range of reproduction, say from a "7 Transistor" radio through whatever is the absolute "best-est" hi-fi in the world, it is reasonably self-evident that toward the lower end of the scale almost nothing is going to be apparent as an "aberration". Whereas at the tippy top of the scale, the limit of audible aberration is likely to be the listener's own auditory capability.
My concept here is that an "aberration" is more likely to be detectable than is any discrete "signal" or "sound" that is buried or not so buried in a recording being reproduced. An example of a aberration is the sort of "grain" or "harshness" that no doubt everyone has experienced or is currently experiencing. The sort of aberration I am thinking of is related directly to the stereo soundfield and/or a tonal/timbre aspect. Not something that is constantly present per se.
I gave the example of young Lee Ann Rime's album Blue, which is a once in a lifetime performance by a 16 year old, but at least on my CD version suffers from a sort of sibilant processing on her otherwise pristine vocals... fine on FM or a table radio, but frankly unlistenable on my ESLs or Horns, and on many other "resolving" (just a general purpose descriptive term) systems due to the annoying aberration embedded in the recording.
I am not sure that the DiffMaker will be a useful tool for detecting what I am calling "aberrations", but it would be neat if amplifier, cap and cable differences (etc.) of this sort showed up in a meaningful way.
_-_-bear
I like your DiffMaker thingie.
At some point when I have a few extra "cycles" available, I'll try dumping in two different "pressings" of the same CD program material, and see what we get.
Earlier on I mentioned while in discourse with Jan that imho there is a big difference between a "distortion" that is unrelated to the musical program and that which is related.
I referred to the correlated case as an "aberration" from a "natural" (to use a broad term, relating to a non-reproduced and non-electro-mechanical perception of sound, generally speaking) sounding reproduction. A key point in my view is that if one views the entire range of reproduction, say from a "7 Transistor" radio through whatever is the absolute "best-est" hi-fi in the world, it is reasonably self-evident that toward the lower end of the scale almost nothing is going to be apparent as an "aberration". Whereas at the tippy top of the scale, the limit of audible aberration is likely to be the listener's own auditory capability.
My concept here is that an "aberration" is more likely to be detectable than is any discrete "signal" or "sound" that is buried or not so buried in a recording being reproduced. An example of a aberration is the sort of "grain" or "harshness" that no doubt everyone has experienced or is currently experiencing. The sort of aberration I am thinking of is related directly to the stereo soundfield and/or a tonal/timbre aspect. Not something that is constantly present per se.
I gave the example of young Lee Ann Rime's album Blue, which is a once in a lifetime performance by a 16 year old, but at least on my CD version suffers from a sort of sibilant processing on her otherwise pristine vocals... fine on FM or a table radio, but frankly unlistenable on my ESLs or Horns, and on many other "resolving" (just a general purpose descriptive term) systems due to the annoying aberration embedded in the recording.
I am not sure that the DiffMaker will be a useful tool for detecting what I am calling "aberrations", but it would be neat if amplifier, cap and cable differences (etc.) of this sort showed up in a meaningful way.
_-_-bear
bear,
I think I follow what you are saying, if I can reword -- that sounds that can be interpreted by ears and brains as not related to the desired signal are less likely to disturb than ones that are riding along right on the part you are focusing on. Is that somewhat it?
It probably isn't that simple though, there is also the role of masking which can hide correlated abberations that exist along with a strong signal. Such as listening to SET amps with high harmonic distortions that can be ignored (or perhaps cherished). While a steady hum in the signal will be pretty disturbing.
At one extreme, the record pops and ticks that can be ignored, at another the harmonic distortion that doesn't disturb.
DiffMaker is pretty dumb, it doesn't know correlated from uncorrelated, it just knows different, in whatever way. Just a glorified minus sign. Let us know how the two CD version thing works out, I'd be interested.
I think I follow what you are saying, if I can reword -- that sounds that can be interpreted by ears and brains as not related to the desired signal are less likely to disturb than ones that are riding along right on the part you are focusing on. Is that somewhat it?
It probably isn't that simple though, there is also the role of masking which can hide correlated abberations that exist along with a strong signal. Such as listening to SET amps with high harmonic distortions that can be ignored (or perhaps cherished). While a steady hum in the signal will be pretty disturbing.
At one extreme, the record pops and ticks that can be ignored, at another the harmonic distortion that doesn't disturb.
DiffMaker is pretty dumb, it doesn't know correlated from uncorrelated, it just knows different, in whatever way. Just a glorified minus sign. Let us know how the two CD version thing works out, I'd be interested.
Yeah... that's pretty much what I was thinking.
The issue is that some sounds that are "riding along" are benign, while others are very nasty.
That is why the SE amplifier can sound so good.
There is a website that was cited somewhere on DiyAudio that showed a very intriguing study comparing a "high distortion" SE tube amp with a "low distortion" NAD amp. As it turned out at highish power levels the absolute value of distortion of the NAD while lower, contained a monster amount more of nasty harmonics, while the SE amp did not. If I recall, it may have even been that the absolute values flipped (before clipping of the NAD, fyi).
As I mentioned earlier the work of D.E.L. Shorter and more recently Dr. Earl Geddes seems to hold a clue to how this works. They both showed that it is the spectra of distortion that matters much much more than the absolute amplitude.
I found this to have the "ring of truth."
Anyway lest I forget to thank you for all the great software and hardware that you have put in the hands of folks, myself included, a big thanks!
_-_-bear
The issue is that some sounds that are "riding along" are benign, while others are very nasty.
That is why the SE amplifier can sound so good.
There is a website that was cited somewhere on DiyAudio that showed a very intriguing study comparing a "high distortion" SE tube amp with a "low distortion" NAD amp. As it turned out at highish power levels the absolute value of distortion of the NAD while lower, contained a monster amount more of nasty harmonics, while the SE amp did not. If I recall, it may have even been that the absolute values flipped (before clipping of the NAD, fyi).
As I mentioned earlier the work of D.E.L. Shorter and more recently Dr. Earl Geddes seems to hold a clue to how this works. They both showed that it is the spectra of distortion that matters much much more than the absolute amplitude.
I found this to have the "ring of truth."
Anyway lest I forget to thank you for all the great software and hardware that you have put in the hands of folks, myself included, a big thanks!
_-_-bear
zapnspark said:
And in that article, I find:
"Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end."
I am not accusing anyone here of falsifying evidence in the sense that Dawkins meant, i.e. dramatically over- or under-reporting distortion specs in an attempt to sway perceptions of a given design. On the other hand, I have seen a number of cases where people seemed quite ready to disregard things they, themselves experienced without further investigation, simply because it didn't fit their preconceived notions of how audio "should" work.
In the long haul, things like the differences in caps will bubble to the surface. That's the self-correcting scientific method in action.
Things are being proven, just not as fast as I (or perhaps you) might wish. However, I am more patient than you.
Caps have been demonstrated to be different. Absolute polarity has been proven to be audible. Red Book CD has been demonstrated to be anything but "pure, perfect sound, forever." Relative time delay between the drivers in a speaker matters. Etc. The difference being that those who listened knew it long before the rest, and as a result enjoyed somewhat better sound quality simply by going with what their ears told them was right. I know that's anathema to you, but it's the simple truth.
Would it be so painful to simply say, for instance, "I can't hear absolute polarity" and let it go? For a number of people here it appears that the answer is no, they can't. For whatever reason, perhaps they don't want to admit in public that their hearing isn't that good, or perhaps that they just don't understand what to listen for, and they can't bring themselves to say it. So they fall back on ridicule, making fun of those who say it exists...then fall strangely silent, never to mention the topic again, once it's 'proven.'
Magic dots may never be proven. I don't hear as much about them as I did a few years ago, so perhaps the Darwinian winnowing process is taking care of them, meaning that the majority of people don't hear anything. If that's the case, then magic dots will become extinct, with or without 'proof' of their efficacy. In the meantime "I don't have a dog in that fight" as the expression goes. I'm quite at ease saying that I have no opinion.
The VPI Magic Brick, on the other hand, appears to have fallen completely off the face of the planet. No one ever talks about them anymore (not even reviewers) and the manufacturer no longer makes them. This is a perfect counterexample to the view that high end listeners are mindless sheep who follow reviewers/gurus/charlatans without critical thought. Actually, in a very Darwinian process, they weeded out an idea that didn't work--even though it came with a perfectly reasonable theory behind it.
SY said:
SY, you aren't quite the scholar of the history of science you believe yourself to be. You also tend to view things askance rather than take them as written.
One, Mendel's work wasn't rediscovered until quite some time after Darwin was dead. Darwin himself did not experience universal acceptance of his theories. Far from it. And wouldn't today, for that matter, although I think you and I would agree that Creation Science...isn't.
Two, Darwin's personal idol, Sir John Herschel, condemned his work. Boy, that must have stung! He wasn't the only one, either. So much for 100% acceptance. (Although it must have helped to have Huxley defend his work with such vigor.)
Three, I've got a copy of a volume at home (at least I think I've still got it--haven't looked for it in quite some time), wherein a fellow takes Einstein to task for relativity. This being quite some time after most others had signed off on it, mind you. Scientists love evidence that proves things? Hardly! Not if they have a deeply-enough entrenched opposing stance, as did the author of that book. In an ideal world, scientists (and the common man, for that matter) would welcome proof of things and adjust their ideas instantly. The last time I looked, this wasn't an ideal world. Perhaps things are different in California. I'd like to think sanity prevailed somewhere, but I have this nagging suspicion that things are the same on that end of the continent as they are on this end.
bwaslo said:
Precisely! And as long as you limit yourself to making up your mind and forming your opinion, then all is as it should be. Retain that frame of mind and go in peace.
Reading comprehension has long been on the wane (as your post so richly demonstrates). If you want demonstrations of people attempting to dissuade others from trying things they disapprove of, I suggest you reread this very thread from page one. Can they prevent, in the physical sense, someone from trying something? Not unless they live in the same town or are willing to travel. But to the extent that they can belittle, berate, and intimidate someone into abandoning their intended course of action, yeah, oh yeah, they'll do their dead-level best. We've got over five-hundred pages of it, right here.
But perhaps you missed that in your self-righteous indignation that anyone would dare challenge orthodoxy.
Grey
Oh please. Indignation that anyone would dare challenge orthodoxy?? Reading comprehension??
Again, you seem to think people challenging a statement or theory or recommending against something that seems a fraud is somehow not right. Who is against challenging orthodoxy again? How about the orthodox views that are high end audio, found in hundreds of pages of audio forums beyond just diy... such as that everything affects the sound, (even things like the wall plates and whether cables touch the carpet). That blind testing is inherently flawed, that placebo effects don't count in audio. That ears never lie. Those are what seems to make up the orthodox belief set these days. But maybe its just my reading comprehension, and maybe those that hold the above beliefs are really the brave challengers.
Yeah, that must be it.
🙄
Given what you followed that with, you're not quite the careful reader you believe yourself to be.
I find this all in bad taste, and that many of you need to be more 'regular' in you bodily functions, as it appears to have affected your dispositions.
Please, let the 'atheists' find another venue to teach their 'science'. We, the chosen 'Golden Ears' and other hangers on will move forward, slogging our way to audio enlightment to the end of our days.
Please, let the 'atheists' find another venue to teach their 'science'. We, the chosen 'Golden Ears' and other hangers on will move forward, slogging our way to audio enlightment to the end of our days.
GRollins said:
I did that, regarding 2 different points of load ground return, and provided measuremens of both options as well. You will find it in this thread, several pages earlier.
I would say that I rely 50% on measurements and 50% on listening tests 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.