john curl said:
I'm sure the reason for this is recorded castanets, John, which to me are very revealing of certain audio system shortcomings/flaws and other issues like this.
Regards,
john curl said:
I find this stuff very interesting, myself. Yes, with a combination of measurements and listening one can design very good audio equipment, as you do. I think understanding how our hearing works is important, especially if you're going to trust your ears. A person who is used to music in clubs with it's excessive punchy bass will likely not not be impressed with the accurate bass of audiophile system. Also a person used to listening on tube gear may find even the best solid state edgy.
The sounds we're habituated to do affect how we respond to new sounds, sound systems.
Then there is all the differences in recordings. I found that while trying to adjust the tweeter of a speaker I built, that it would sound great on some recordings at a certain level and worse on others. It was hard to get just right. On top of that my system sounds different to me on different days! So, I'm looking into different tone controls to build.
Do op-amps really sound worse than discretes. I've build some very nice preamps using high quality IC buffers. I really like the sound of this discrete preamp I just build though. Maybe our ears like a little added 2nd harmonic to compensate of the less pleasant higher order harmonics?
I don't know, but I like to try to gain understanding of these things.
Do wire and cables really make much difference? I hear a difference. I often prefer cheap wire and often find silver too bright. My dad really likes his Oval Analysis silvers and I have put up with them. I have adjusted our system to sound very good despite these cables.
Though, I've also found silver wire to sound excellent in one of the IC preamps I built. Are these differences real? Is it just my mind playing tricks on me? I don't think so, but I'm open to that possibility. Maybe extended listening blind tests could be helpful.
I also think it's important to know why extended listening tests are important, and tell a different story than short A-B tests. You can be totally unaware of some sounds you have aversion to, then after a period time they become apparent. Sometimes, we habituate to it and other times we send component back.
I find this stuff interesting and useful. I just like to ask these questions and try to find answers. This subject seems to interest me more than others here, probably due to the experiences I've had with my ears.
Johnloudb said:
For direct comparison we can keep something like 8-10secs of sound in our direct memory. This is usefull if you do listening comparisons with simple sounds, you can switch between them fairly rapidly and you can be very sensitive to small differences.
The problem with more complex sounds like music is that there are many different attributes of that sound, like freq content, rythm, pace, melody, spaciousness, harmony, resolution, you name it, and we are not able to simultaneously keep track of all of them. So we need longer periods to become aware of all those attributes by focussing our attention on this one, then on that one. Then we must somehow try to decide that there is a difference or not. You can imagine that it is rare to have agreement on the differences, if any in such situations. Different listeners can have different opinions and all be right at the same time.
A corollary from this is, that is we miss the one attribute where two selections differ, we don't hear the difference, while in another session someone else (or even you) suddenly DOES hear a difference. Part of the advantage of trained listeners is that they (hopefully) are aware of these issues and can methodologically and mentally check each issue off.
All of this is assuming of course that there actually IS an audible difference, which is another kettle of fish...
Jan Didden
First, let me state that I am not saying blind testing is invalid. I have however participated in blind tests with unexpected results. These were not listening tests, but show just how easily people (including me) can be fooled.
The first blind test of this type came about when a master chef I was taking classes from flatly stated that no one in the class could tell the difference between Coke and Sprite while blindfolded. Of course we jumped at the chance to prove him wrong. The results were 50/50, the same as guessing.
The second test of this type was even more bizarre. We were to tell the difference in 5 different liquors. The 5 were vodka, gin, tequila, bourbon and rum. They were placed in our hand in shot glasses, randomly. All we had to do was identify each one. Only one person out of 14 got 3 correct. She didn't taste them, just smell.
I don't believe for a second that I can't tell these differences when I know what I am tasting. Why were the results so poor in a blind test?
The first blind test of this type came about when a master chef I was taking classes from flatly stated that no one in the class could tell the difference between Coke and Sprite while blindfolded. Of course we jumped at the chance to prove him wrong. The results were 50/50, the same as guessing.
The second test of this type was even more bizarre. We were to tell the difference in 5 different liquors. The 5 were vodka, gin, tequila, bourbon and rum. They were placed in our hand in shot glasses, randomly. All we had to do was identify each one. Only one person out of 14 got 3 correct. She didn't taste them, just smell.
I don't believe for a second that I can't tell these differences when I know what I am tasting. Why were the results so poor in a blind test?
Steve Dunlap said:
Your brain doesn't have to waste BTUs getting oriented and focusing on everything because it doesn't know what's important. I've seen this happen. Give someone a reference point and the resolution is many fold.
Mike.
Steve Dunlap said:
You said it, Steve. Identifying the taste is the integrated perception of taste, sight, memory, smell, expectation, etc.
And that one person out of 14 that got 3 out of 5, well, that's not very impressive. Gambling alone gets you close to 3 out of 5, and with 14 people, one of them *must* get close. In fact, the probability of 1 out of 14 doing 3 out of 5 correct by gambling is much larger than 50%.
Jan Didden
And what's the probability that someone in an audience of 100 people at a demonstration will get 6 right out of six trials...?😀
Of such statistical ignorance are legends made.
Of such statistical ignorance are legends made.
Steve, thank you for pointing out what can happen with 'blind' tests. That also happens when ABX'ing decent audio equipment. THAT IS WHY I DON'T USE IT!
Of course, we can fool ourselves, BUT we can at least try NOT to be fooled. We can't easily fix the ABX problem. AND even if we were successful, those cynics out there would say it was just a lucky chance, OR a hidden flaw in the switching, etc.
Trust me, this is my reality with ABX and has been so for the last 30 years.
Would you like to develop a recipe, or anything that takes some form of SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION, with a test with such a failure, or NULL rate?
Of course, we can fool ourselves, BUT we can at least try NOT to be fooled. We can't easily fix the ABX problem. AND even if we were successful, those cynics out there would say it was just a lucky chance, OR a hidden flaw in the switching, etc.
Trust me, this is my reality with ABX and has been so for the last 30 years.
Would you like to develop a recipe, or anything that takes some form of SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION, with a test with such a failure, or NULL rate?
Straw man. A deliberately badly designed test (not even a test, a demonstration without experimenter controls) and you're ready to jump on that? C'mon, John, we knew better than that 80 years ago (to steal your phrase).
john curl said:
Indeed. No way you can identify a BT from a 100$ Sony unless you see it 😀
Jan Didden
SY, you can play at hi fi, and use tubes to get far enough away from solid state hi fi design to think that you are free from 'objectivity', but it doesn't work that way with we, the professional audio designers. We have to be 'objective' enough not to fool ourselves more than absolutely possible, YET we have to be open to what works, as well.
There is a lot of expensive and cost effective audio equipment out there for sale. As designers, IF we don't have a design advantage, we should not bother, as EVERYTHING we make is going to cost more than something made in China, India, etc. with the same superficial performance.
The ONLY thing that we have is our experience with what seems to sound better than anything else. We use this 'advantage' to make better audio equipment. AND several of us, who contribute on this website, are successful at it. This has been shown for decades of successful designs recognized internationally.
There is a lot of expensive and cost effective audio equipment out there for sale. As designers, IF we don't have a design advantage, we should not bother, as EVERYTHING we make is going to cost more than something made in China, India, etc. with the same superficial performance.
The ONLY thing that we have is our experience with what seems to sound better than anything else. We use this 'advantage' to make better audio equipment. AND several of us, who contribute on this website, are successful at it. This has been shown for decades of successful designs recognized internationally.
I actually can tell the difference between a SONY and a BLOWTORCH.
I have a SONY SACD player attached to the BLOWTORCH, and every time that I play a CD, DVD, or SACD, I hear the difference. It is frustrating, because the rest of my equipment is first class. A vinyl record or even FM reproduction is better. Yet, I know that IF I invested in an AYRE or another really high quality CD player, I could get better sound.
Could I actually measure the difference, with the $50,000 (new) test equipment that I have on hand? No. It is more subtle than that, but it is ALWAYS THERE, and I just can't 'get used to it', hope for the equipment to 'break in' or just accept it as my imagination.
If I could, I would, as I can't afford anything else, now or in the near future.
This is my reality, and ABX be ------.
I have a SONY SACD player attached to the BLOWTORCH, and every time that I play a CD, DVD, or SACD, I hear the difference. It is frustrating, because the rest of my equipment is first class. A vinyl record or even FM reproduction is better. Yet, I know that IF I invested in an AYRE or another really high quality CD player, I could get better sound.
Could I actually measure the difference, with the $50,000 (new) test equipment that I have on hand? No. It is more subtle than that, but it is ALWAYS THERE, and I just can't 'get used to it', hope for the equipment to 'break in' or just accept it as my imagination.
If I could, I would, as I can't afford anything else, now or in the near future.
This is my reality, and ABX be ------.
Pioneer stuff is very different. Sometimes it is fairly weak, sometimes is very good, so I wonder how good were their engineers who designed for mass production.
janneman said:
Happy man you are then with your 100$ Sony. Not all the people are same deaf 😉
Sometimes Pioneer is very good, I agree. I have a Pioneer Laserdisc player that I like a lot. Sometimes SONY is very good, especially in video. I have a $15,000 (new) Sony video projector. I love it!
courage said:
Franklin,
You seem like a nice enough fellow, posting with good intentions. However, you have failed to read through this thread and have apparently showed up rather late and in the process you have missed a great deal of pertinent information.
To that end, I sugges that you read first, talk second. Also do a thorough search for other threads that are related to this one, including those on other products that John Curl has designed and have been made into commercial products.
Then report back if you still are frustrated by the lack of a "buildable design" for DIYers... Ok?
_-_-bear
john curl said:
ONLY when you see it. Not on sound alone, because you flunk any blind test. Your words.
Jan Didden
Andre Visser said:
Sorry for catching up late...
If you happen to have a DAC or preamp that can swap absolute phase quickly (or just have a friend to swap speaker cable orientations) try the first cut on Mickey Hart's Planet Drum CD?
IF your system has a minimum of phase reversals within the main passband (<300 - >3000Hz. or higher) then you have a very good chance of hearing a surprising distinction in the soundfield presentation when the absolute phase is switched. This recording is unique in this regards, afaik. Few recording that I have here will do the same trick.
I suspect that it is due to the way it was recorded. It seems likely that it was multitracked but using stereo (x/y or similar) mic techniques, and with multiple layers mixed together. So, what seems to have happenend is that about half of the stereo pairs are in phase with each other, and half are not. Since it is percussion and there is a very definite positive pulse, that means that half of the mix goes + when half is - , the postiive is more present in the mix, until you flip the phase when the other "side" then becomes the "positive" - changing the spatial presentation.
Fun.
Of course if your speakers do a "180" a few times or more in the passband, that whole bit is scrambled to begin with - regardless of the frequency response of the system...
Ymmv.
😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.