That is exactly why controlled ears-only listening is the sine qua non for establishing the existence of a claimed phenomenon.
Not at all. I am merely saying that discussion of the causes of a phenomenon cannot be limited to those who have personally experienced the phenomenon. Should we limit discussion about the possible causes of claims of garden fairies to those who have personally seen them?Ken Newton said:
Not when the claim is that an addition to an electronic circuit performs electronic actions which are different from (and additional to?) its normal expected action. This is a claim about physics, not perception, however it is dressed up.
Adding a capacitor to a low frequency circuit will affect the circuit in ways which are fully subject to circuit theory. That simple assertion seems to be disputed or ignored by some in this discussion.
Some, not all. I'm putting money on the low-pass filter removing some HF hash that causes problems downstream. At least that seems the most plausible to me.
In my new digs I don't have the test equipment I used to, but will scrounge around to see what I can come up with. I have a few DACs lying about to poke at. What I no longer have is a way to test above 96Khz.
In my new digs I don't have the test equipment I used to, but will scrounge around to see what I can come up with. I have a few DACs lying about to poke at. What I no longer have is a way to test above 96Khz.
Safe and Secure
Yes, that is the basis for establishing statistically valid proof of existence. However, it's just as important to note, that the absence of ears-only listening testing does not disprove a claimed listening phenomena. All phenomena that are later scientifically proven to exist were once merely claimed to exist by a single observer. An intermediate phase of proof, where multiple independent observers confirm their observation of the phenomena is located between the first lone unsubstantiated observation and any eventual scientifically valid confirmation thereof. That is where, I believe, things stand now.
As has been pointed out several times before, this site is DIY. By it's very nature, this site functions to make the exploration and development of experimental audio equipment more accessible to the audio hobbyist. It is not an A.E.S. standard of resource, nor should it be, in my estimation. As I see it, what we have in this case is an contributor claiming to have observed an unexpected and interesting perceptual effect when experimenting with seemingly minor post DAC filter modifications. That contributor first seeks to determine whether anyone else hears what he hears, to find whether he is alone in his perception and therefore likely mistaken. So, he provides the details of his listening experiment to anyone willing to confirm or deny obtaining a similar perceptual result. Upon which, a number of other observers confirm obtaining similar results.
After which, others, who have not and, apparently, will not try the simple and inexpensive listening experiment instead choose to insist that one of the following is taking place. That there is no actual effect, so those that claim to hear such are self-delusional at best and dishonest at worst, and should therefore be dismissed. Or, that those claiming to hear the effect haven't demonstrated that claim with statistically valid testing, and therefore should be ignored until such time as they put together a scientifically rigorous listening test. This latter notion is particularly puzzling, as I don't recall that being the standard applied to begin many other listening discussions here.
In the end, those willing to try so simple and so inexpensive an experiment to determine whether they hear for themselves the described effect may be able to enjoy their digital playback that much more. Those insisting that statiscally valid proof must be shown BEFORE they will conduct so simple and so inexpensive an DIY experiment are certainly free to move forward safe and secure in the the knowledge that thet are not, using DF96's term of choice, foolish.
Yes, that is the basis for establishing statistically valid proof of existence. However, it's just as important to note, that the absence of ears-only listening testing does not disprove a claimed listening phenomena. All phenomena that are later scientifically proven to exist were once merely claimed to exist by a single observer. An intermediate phase of proof, where multiple independent observers confirm their observation of the phenomena is located between the first lone unsubstantiated observation and any eventual scientifically valid confirmation thereof. That is where, I believe, things stand now.
As has been pointed out several times before, this site is DIY. By it's very nature, this site functions to make the exploration and development of experimental audio equipment more accessible to the audio hobbyist. It is not an A.E.S. standard of resource, nor should it be, in my estimation. As I see it, what we have in this case is an contributor claiming to have observed an unexpected and interesting perceptual effect when experimenting with seemingly minor post DAC filter modifications. That contributor first seeks to determine whether anyone else hears what he hears, to find whether he is alone in his perception and therefore likely mistaken. So, he provides the details of his listening experiment to anyone willing to confirm or deny obtaining a similar perceptual result. Upon which, a number of other observers confirm obtaining similar results.
After which, others, who have not and, apparently, will not try the simple and inexpensive listening experiment instead choose to insist that one of the following is taking place. That there is no actual effect, so those that claim to hear such are self-delusional at best and dishonest at worst, and should therefore be dismissed. Or, that those claiming to hear the effect haven't demonstrated that claim with statistically valid testing, and therefore should be ignored until such time as they put together a scientifically rigorous listening test. This latter notion is particularly puzzling, as I don't recall that being the standard applied to begin many other listening discussions here.
In the end, those willing to try so simple and so inexpensive an experiment to determine whether they hear for themselves the described effect may be able to enjoy their digital playback that much more. Those insisting that statiscally valid proof must be shown BEFORE they will conduct so simple and so inexpensive an DIY experiment are certainly free to move forward safe and secure in the the knowledge that thet are not, using DF96's term of choice, foolish.
This is going down hill quick.
Indeed. One hopes that Joe, at least, is sincere in his desire to do a good listening test and leaves the lame excuse-making to others.
Again, with the magical beings as somehow being appropriately analogous to an music reproduction perceptual effect. Surely, you can see that by attempting to draw such an ridiculously inapt analogy you only discredit your argument rather than support it.
Perhaps, this is the source of your confusion, it is not only about physics. The end of the system chain in question features the human ear-brain perceptual system. For example, harmonic distortion certainly can be characterized via circuit and acoustical physics, but those don't inform us about the significance of distortion to human aural perception. We only know distortion's human aural significance via subjective perceptual studies - of which many are still under debate. We have no control over the ear-brain perceptual system. We can only control the electrical and acoustical physical system elements, but in the service of the human perceptual element. It's not the other way around.
I've yet to read anyone here dispute how an RC filter functions, particularly in the frequency domain. Most of the conjecture I saw quickly moved toward a time-domain related cause. The net effect of changing capacitor value isn't necessarily so simple to assume then, what with code dependent reactive DAC outputs, and reactive I/V inputs, Resonance might not only occur, but the center frequency and Q might get dynamically modulated by the signal. Such conjecture isn't offered as the end of the discussion, it's offered as the beginning. At the least, it opens the range of potential technical causes beyond that of easy to dismiss RC filter frequency domain effects.
I suggest trying the experiment and listen for yourself. If you feel you can't at all trust what you hear, then I wonder how you select any of your system components. Perhaps, you'll hear nothing, but then again.
This is going down hill quick.
I was afraid of that.
What have I done that is so wrong?
I get private mail and emails that people want this DIY topic, but once again I fear that they are being shut out and feel intimidated. There are more up them and they are the majority.
The topic was carefully chosen, in consultation, and much time was spent in setting it up - can we not repeat the mistakes of the past and move on?
Now we all know where we stand. OK, good. No problem.
But let's move on: The topic is DIY projects and testing an idea.
It's simple, it's cheap, it's accessible DIY, in fact, this IS what DIY is supposed to be about.
May I also point out that I am also available on Blowtorch II lounge thread. Maybe transfer the... I am trying to choose my words very carefully... the alternative(?) discussion to there? I am fine with that. I don't want to leave the impression that I am being evasive.
Cheers, Joe
-
Agree, that is one part of it.
Also, there has been reference on the forum of the observation that a very gentle roll off can improve perceived sound.
Also, Joe has alluded that the cap shunting the DAC outputs changes the operation of the DAC, and that the cap value can be quite critical.
Joe, you state 1uF cap....what kind ?....and data sheet specs ?.
Dan.
Not really. We are talking about 3R3 being in parallel with 750R (effectively) in the example given. I have done this, it works. I used LM4562, it's UGS, no problem whatsoever I assure you.
Cheers, Joe
I don't need assurance, I simply want to know exactly what you put in the simulator to try to reproduce it.
I attach below what happens if you vary either the feedback resistor or the opamp (both are unity gain stable).
Attachments
I see that you are doing it single-ended, something I have not looked at. Can you try model it differentially? BTW, I use SoundEasy and it works well for my needs. It replicated quite closely the result I got.
Doing it balanced got me the same results than SE. Changing either the value of the feedback resistors or the opamps change the FR of the filter.
I see that SoundEasy is a program designed for loudspeakers crossovers. Does it simulate actual opamps or only ideal ones ?
"valid listening" - is that a Freudian slip? All my listening is valid.
Read your article, very interesting, but there are some serious omissions, even flaws. The thing about double-blind testing is that it is a noble idea and there are areas where it has its place.
But in auditory perception of differences? Here I am at best an agnostic, I just don't have your 100% faith in it, as some kind cure-all - and my lack of faith is not just because of hunches, but very real reasons, real concerns.
Please note, I do not consider myself a subjectivity nor objectivist. I just don't want to get involved in that nonsense - common sense tell me that both sides can be equally wrong. Total conformity is foolish.
OK, take for example the idea of double-blind testing is about taking "bias" out of the way. Seems perfectly logical. Except bias is not the greatest weakness here and you seem to ignore some pretty big issues and just focus on one - others make that mistake. Some significant 'papers' do.
There is one particular weakness of double-blind testing that you could drive a convoy of trucks through. One that I have seen nobody write about yet. This has to do with the decision maker of the person asked to validate the listening test. What is he supposed to be listening for? Nothing is mentioned about this. Yet it will have an emphatic effect on the outcome and particularly your capacitor blind test actually proves that. Why? Because the real question is not what the test presents, but the question that the listener has to ask himself, that is not heard out aloud. When I point it out, it changes everything.
If I was to write an article on this, I suppose a rebuttal to yours, then I am sure you took your time and so would I, make it considered and also persuasive. Do not think I am bluffing here, I have plenty of material of substance to present, and no, they are not Robert Harley and Swedish Radio (you see sometimes I don't mind pretending I am a little naive in order to bring out the other side into the open - sneaky, eh? - pays off not to have a big ego). I wonder if Jan Didden would include that as well on his website - one can hope?
But the question is where to put it, should it be here on this thread, or on Blowtorch II or on a website and present a link to it? Let me know and I will start on this little project, but don't rush me.
But, on the positive side, I think my money would be on the measurements. How is that for a turn-up, I am actually more objectivist than you are, seemingly preferring measurements over your 'listening tests.'
I have now repeated a dozen times, that I want the measurements more than anybody else, even more than you. So don't rush me on that one either. I will be doing everything I can. As James Garner said repeatedly as Maverick, while whittling away a small piece of wood, "I am working on it."
Maybe the article I will write should be called "The Voldemort Question of Double-Blind Listening Tests"?
Cheers, Joe
PS: Has anything ever been validated in yours or other's double-blind listening tests other than was predicted beforehand by those who conduct them? Like Peter Walker's "all amplifiers sound the same" and "bit-rate" is unimportant? Or is there a "sameness" to the outcome of them all, they are all in the negative? I hope not, I mean, I really hope not.
For who?
Truth is, that you are in the minority. Most people just don't care. Oddly enough, I do.
But is Robert Harley right, this is a war on audiophiles? Are these tests basically designed to fail?
Can you give examples where so-called audiophile views were confirmed by double-blind tests? You are the expert, only fair to ask you, right?
Also, you seem to have no curiosity for listening to another view, one that raises the view that the listener who is asked to listen to 'differences' now also silently have to ask himself a certain question? And you are not curious about what that question might be?
BTW, and this is curious, I made this six-channel tube front-end that a number of artists have used on the albums/CDs, one of them is Leo Sayer. Make no doubt about it, this has a 'sound' and one that everybody likes and they insist that it be available for their recordings, yet it is still quite clean - so I wonder how that would do against competing products they also use, day in and out, in a double-blind test?
Would the known difference actually survive the double-blind test?
Can we double-blind test the double-blind test !!!
It seems to be a fair enough question to ask.
Cheers, Joe
(Yes, I know about triple-blind...)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.