Funny, no talk of getting reviews. No reviews, no sales to speak of. Reviewers don't blind ABX. Ah, darn that little detail of sales. I forgot! This is engineering. Silly me that I like to eat.
No one has suggested that sales in a fashion industry like yours are based on purely sonics. In fact, quite the opposite- when you're selling a parity product, your "edge" will be look, feel, and a good story. These are lost when doing ears-only comparisons, only the actual sound matters, not the marketing, religion, or buzzwords.
It's a fundamental part of the social contract known as doing anything remotely scientific in nature (which a listening test is, no?). Kind of a core precept of the whole gig. I demand the same thing out of myself.
So, no, not a cop out. And by the same governance, it restricts the kinds of claims some people have made and bounds the hypotheses. (Myself included)
If nothing is tested it just remains speculation.
Hmmm, a mixum-gatherum of bits & pieces here. Who said listening has to be scientific? What's 'remotely scientific' - a watered down nod towards some scientific principles - just enough to look good?
If you demand the same rigor of yourself I note that you haven't done any formally robust listening test - so I take it you are still demanding this of yourself. Until you do this what should we dismiss all your reported listening experiences?
By the same token, anybody who hasn't submitted themselves to such a formally robust listening test & yet demands it of others seems to me less interested in truth & more in winning the debate - Scott Wurcer's sig says it better than I
You either have experienced it or you haven't - everything else is just speculation.
Yes!
Exactly so. Precisely so.
I had not thought to include the MI pedals!
But this is 100% correct.
And as far as the "sound" of the opamp giving the appearance of "following" itself around regardless of which circuit it is put in, bingo!
As another example, 25years back, maybe 20 a LPF designed to run a subwoofer, buffer in, 4th order opamp filter (does it matter which type?) and buffer out... when listened to with the "hot" low distortion BB chip of the time sounded a bit "soupy" or fat (but how? it was low distortion!?). Whereas the 5532 (think it used duals) was a bit hard/thin/solid state sounding. Solution? A combination of the two opamps was deemed to be approximately correct/best on these subwoofers...
SO, you apparently do not need to have particularly good HF hearing to hear differences in opamps! 😎
How hard could it be to try something like that urself - heck you can buy some online 4th order LPF board, put sockets on it and try it on almost any random speaker with a woofer... use a blindfold when swapping opamps, or have your wife/GF/homeless person from the street do it - wear sunglasses so you can't really see, and listen.
Dare ya.
_-_-
Stereophile is a completely different animal. There someone does his subjective review, then someone else does some measurements and tries to explain how they support the subjective review. Not very convincing.
As for compression, it's the perfect example where it can go both ways - pleasant or unpleasant. And you can't predict the effect just by the numbers. It's all about the sound engineer's experience, taste and objectives. Do you think they adjust it in double blind ABX?
Sounds straight out the John Curl story book where he recounts meeting Bob Crump and how he then became part of the three that developed the blowtorch.
So you can't think of a single parameter to ask the subjective types to compare against?
Although not as beefed up as the OPA1622, more like 1688 territory such a part has existed for many years. It s a improved version of 5532 and used by many audio manufacturers even so called high end ones (example Marantz). It has slightly improved specs on all parametres versus 5532. Its a very good opamp -NJM2114. At around one euro a part very affordable too.
Name it.
What I said is that it may require some combination (similar to the Gedlee Metric) to be meaningful... eh?
Look who shows his colors? 😀
If not the case, then begs the question why you've engaged the discussion, no? Ostensibly because someone wants to actually determine something defensibly, whereupon the scientific method is the best way we've got thus far. Under constant revision.
Yes, absolutely. Why would I be exempt? If you go looking I was not able to differentiate Bill Waslo's sousaphone test (has anyone?), nor a couple of Mooly's opamp comparisons (did anyone?). In addition, I'm outing myself as biased towards null. In hindsight, the way I did those comparisons was less than ideal (I could have restructured the tests slightly), but they were very hard. If you look at the hypothesis I lay out in this thread (and its rationale), it's very conservatively placed, in regards to those tests plus what I've learned from other people's more carefully controlled tests. I lay that out there openly, please feel free to clarify and refine that hypothesis.
Otherwise, you'll find quickly that the only listening impressions you'll find from me are few and far between, namely surrounding new music or styles. If you like the same type of music as I do, then great, if not, nothing lost.
I invite you to think a little harder about that assertion, as you made a few big logical jumps to get there. That presumes that one must prove everything him/her self, no? Therein lies the social contract--I'm not going to reproduce all the hard-won knowledge and wisdom that I'm dependent on to do my work. I have to rely on other peoples tests and that they did due diligence. And vice-versa to any claims I make. Ideally the peer review system enforces that, to a decent degree (and if not there, then replication, and if not there, then a lack of progression in a theory over time to its ultimate demise).
That's a very interesting philosophy, whereupon we can hash out what "experience" really is. Probably not worth engaging here, but I do invite you to open that in a thread in the lounge. 😀
If not the case, then begs the question why you've engaged the discussion, no? Ostensibly because someone wants to actually determine something defensibly, whereupon the scientific method is the best way we've got thus far. Under constant revision.
Yes, absolutely. Why would I be exempt? If you go looking I was not able to differentiate Bill Waslo's sousaphone test (has anyone?), nor a couple of Mooly's opamp comparisons (did anyone?). In addition, I'm outing myself as biased towards null. In hindsight, the way I did those comparisons was less than ideal (I could have restructured the tests slightly), but they were very hard. If you look at the hypothesis I lay out in this thread (and its rationale), it's very conservatively placed, in regards to those tests plus what I've learned from other people's more carefully controlled tests. I lay that out there openly, please feel free to clarify and refine that hypothesis.
Otherwise, you'll find quickly that the only listening impressions you'll find from me are few and far between, namely surrounding new music or styles. If you like the same type of music as I do, then great, if not, nothing lost.
I invite you to think a little harder about that assertion, as you made a few big logical jumps to get there. That presumes that one must prove everything him/her self, no? Therein lies the social contract--I'm not going to reproduce all the hard-won knowledge and wisdom that I'm dependent on to do my work. I have to rely on other peoples tests and that they did due diligence. And vice-versa to any claims I make. Ideally the peer review system enforces that, to a decent degree (and if not there, then replication, and if not there, then a lack of progression in a theory over time to its ultimate demise).
That's a very interesting philosophy, whereupon we can hash out what "experience" really is. Probably not worth engaging here, but I do invite you to open that in a thread in the lounge. 😀
Last edited:
No? Isn't this the same forum where John Curl regularly gets stoned in public for not supporting his subjective assessments with numbers? Like there would be a scientifically proved way to do that?
And, to keep it to this particular thread, what do you think the recent altercation between Abraxalito and DPH was about (pages 175-776)?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.