Lol.Van Gogh ,after Beethoven ,was the first audiophool in history : he cut away his ear to catch THAT effect
You still need 2 functioning ears and pinnae to properly locate and recognize monaural sounds in nature. All sounds in nature are monaural, by the way. Of course, it is near impossible to recreate positional cues that way, save maybe attaching a few mono speakers to silent and very fast flying drones 😛
Until that time, we either get holographic sound (phantom images that our ears know aren't real) from multi-channel playback systems, or lose the ability to create positional cues and run with something much more convincing.
Modern theories say that air travels at 344 m/s with the sound 😉
once it is spread , it bounces on every surface.
So a true holographic effect happens in Nature .
once it is spread , it bounces on every surface.
So a true holographic effect happens in Nature .
Claims and proof such as the OP's statement.
Proof needs research of course, so I would like to see cites on that. Would the OP be kind enough as to provide a few references?
Tim
In truth, as I have found it, it is just better to listen to an amp or preamp with your favorite recordings, hopefully high quality, and judge for yourself. Nothing else really works.
Hello All,
I have a just for fun Double blind story to tell.
A friend of mine that I have known for many years makes wine. He, his brothers and cousins travel to local vineyards and buy the finest of grapes. The grapes are carefully pressed. The juice is methodically fermented. After fermentation the young wine is aged in a single fine oak cask. The ageing is carefully temperature and humidity controlled. The oak aged wine is then bottled and aged in the bottle. This is a family DIY effort of the highest tradition. Most of the bottles never see more than a felt tip pen marking for identification. The bottles that are presented as gifts or intended for public consumption are fixed with a private label. This is the where my interest gets peeked. Each of the vintners has his own private label. Keep in mind the wine is identical except for the label on the bottle. One State Fair several years ago three of the wine makers took his bottle with his private label to the fair to compete in the home wine making competition. Neither the person setting up the bottles for the competition nor the judges knew how the wines had made their way to the competition. (This is the double blind part.)
My friend won Gold, his cousin won Bronze and his brother won nothing.
DT
All just for fun!
I have a just for fun Double blind story to tell.
A friend of mine that I have known for many years makes wine. He, his brothers and cousins travel to local vineyards and buy the finest of grapes. The grapes are carefully pressed. The juice is methodically fermented. After fermentation the young wine is aged in a single fine oak cask. The ageing is carefully temperature and humidity controlled. The oak aged wine is then bottled and aged in the bottle. This is a family DIY effort of the highest tradition. Most of the bottles never see more than a felt tip pen marking for identification. The bottles that are presented as gifts or intended for public consumption are fixed with a private label. This is the where my interest gets peeked. Each of the vintners has his own private label. Keep in mind the wine is identical except for the label on the bottle. One State Fair several years ago three of the wine makers took his bottle with his private label to the fair to compete in the home wine making competition. Neither the person setting up the bottles for the competition nor the judges knew how the wines had made their way to the competition. (This is the double blind part.)
My friend won Gold, his cousin won Bronze and his brother won nothing.
DT
All just for fun!
Granted. No where near the disparity caused by doubling the number of sources, though. The surface reflections have a purpose, so you can aurally determine the positions of them. Our ears have no problem resolving the data presented. Very different to stereophonic playback systems, where our aural systems are confused (instead of fooled).
This seems to lead us to believe we can recognize things going on that may or may not actually be happening. All Double blind testing of this kind should be done in mono. No question about it.
Unfortunately everything in German, but I have heard google translate has become better.
Here is the paper:
http://www.irt.de/IRT/FuE/ak/pdf/Un...rrungen am Aktivlautsprecher_Diplomarbeit.pdf
The amp is called "Black Cat"
Projekt "BLACK CAT" High-End Audio-Röhrenverstärker — FG EMSP TU-Berlin
Two amplifiers with the same specification, equalized, both same power
same dinamics,... inspected in laboratories...when placed together, to a blind test, will sound different...some of them have small differences and other huge differences....we can simplify saying they are almost the same...but this is not precise, as some of them offer huge differences...the amplifier and speaker association, conversation, results different.
Good specifications are not guarantee of audio quality.
The harmonic distribution sometimes shows something that will be good to ones and not good to others.
Tube amplifiers are not very good in measurements but sounds good for the majority of the population evaluation.
I use childrens, not biased, to evaluate..and they always point the better..so...in a comparison, we have always the better and the worse.
regards,
Carlos
same dinamics,... inspected in laboratories...when placed together, to a blind test, will sound different...some of them have small differences and other huge differences....we can simplify saying they are almost the same...but this is not precise, as some of them offer huge differences...the amplifier and speaker association, conversation, results different.
Good specifications are not guarantee of audio quality.
The harmonic distribution sometimes shows something that will be good to ones and not good to others.
Tube amplifiers are not very good in measurements but sounds good for the majority of the population evaluation.
I use childrens, not biased, to evaluate..and they always point the better..so...in a comparison, we have always the better and the worse.
regards,
Carlos
Personally, I stopped bothering with people who are saying that every two amps above certain routine specs sound same and that the controlled double blind test is the only proof.
This attitude keeps me relatively sane 😀
The discussion is useless, as both camps will never persuade each other. Just an opportunity for those who have nothing better to do 🙂
This attitude keeps me relatively sane 😀
The discussion is useless, as both camps will never persuade each other. Just an opportunity for those who have nothing better to do 🙂
Do note that if those tests are the typical ABX tests they are unable to prove that all amps sound the same.
dave
Richard Clark's original hypothesis is that all amps that measure the same, sound the same. That has been misconstrued and poorly understood over the years, to the point where people think that all level-matched amps will sound the same. A monkey could tell you that all amps don't sound the same.
I think he is still unofficially running the $10,000 challenge, though. So if you disagree, and believe that some unmeasurable difference between 2 amps can be heard, you might as well step up and take his money.
I think he is still unofficially running the $10,000 challenge, though. So if you disagree, and believe that some unmeasurable difference between 2 amps can be heard, you might as well step up and take his money.
I do not know any two (different) amplifiers that would measure absolutely same in all known parameters and measuring methods 😉. But the first post of this thread does not define it this way.
Well the other side of the coin, is that he believes, that for very little money, he can make a cheaper amplifier measure almost exactly the same as a more expensive one, and it's under these conditions that he offers somebody $10,000 if they can pick out which amp is which 10 times in a double blind test.
Me too. It would be soooo easy and soooo cheap. No more tubes, lundahl transformers, transistor matching etc...
Show me a good sounding IC Amp and I will change from tube to IC immediately.
A friend of mine is the chief audio engineer for a very well known German High-End firm demonstrated (privately) a transistor amp with typical tube harmonic distortion, IM etc... to proof that it's so easy to fool the ear. Well, it failed miserably, it did not even come close to sound like a tube. In the end he could not fool one person with or without blind testing! It was warm sounding that's all. But the space between the instruments, the stage width and depth, the natural touch to acoustic instruments etc. was missing badly. He tried really hard and gave up in the end and earned harsh critics.
Having worked in a mid to high-end hi-fi store I find the opinion of Peter Aczel to be quite amusing.
All the different brands of amplifiers we sold met his criteria for high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise; yet there were huge differences in how they sounded.
I modified a McIntosh amplifier for a customer that ran a recording studio. After listening to it for a while, he requested that I remove some of the bass and treble boost (he thought that I had added). I had to show him the measurements that the frequency response was ruler flat, and explain that all I had done was add some bypass caps to the power supply and coupling caps (about $4 worth).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All food tastes the same (if you have a zinc deficiency), all women kiss the same (if you're a eunuch), VHS and Beta look the same (to Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder), and all amplifiers sound the same (to the deaf old men at Stereo Review).
WHO?
Tell the deaf/dumb/blind kid to go play pinball.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be quite amazing to listen to an NYAL Moscode, Threshold Stasis, and an Electrocompaniet AW50. They sound so different from each other you would think there must be a difference I can measure. All three sound amazing, but very different from each other.
All the different brands of amplifiers we sold met his criteria for high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise; yet there were huge differences in how they sounded.
I modified a McIntosh amplifier for a customer that ran a recording studio. After listening to it for a while, he requested that I remove some of the bass and treble boost (he thought that I had added). I had to show him the measurements that the frequency response was ruler flat, and explain that all I had done was add some bypass caps to the power supply and coupling caps (about $4 worth).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All food tastes the same (if you have a zinc deficiency), all women kiss the same (if you're a eunuch), VHS and Beta look the same (to Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder), and all amplifiers sound the same (to the deaf old men at Stereo Review).
WHO?
Tell the deaf/dumb/blind kid to go play pinball.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be quite amazing to listen to an NYAL Moscode, Threshold Stasis, and an Electrocompaniet AW50. They sound so different from each other you would think there must be a difference I can measure. All three sound amazing, but very different from each other.
Last edited:
What he stated wasn't an opinion. Please re-read the quote.
Because what Aczel stated was a fact, it is falsifiable (unlike an opinion). If you have been able to distinguish between two stable amplifiers with low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, and that are not clipping, under controlled (e.g., double blind) conditions, then you should write up the protocol, controls, and results in detail. That's quite publishable and will certainly be useful in refuting the fact claims of Aczel and others.
A fact for you. No agreement on the method used. it only says that just and only for the method used and local conditions of the experiment no difference was heard, nothing more, nothing less. The result cannot be generalized at all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.