From your comments it sounds like you don't systematically hear distortions that bother you, and you believe your own ears. Other people do hear unexplained distortions and so for them, naturally, they believe their own ears. I could never stand listening to 45s due to the massive distortion, still don't like LPs either. And, I agree speakers have way more distortion than other components in a system. That being said, sometimes if you swap amps, it still sounds different through the speakers, and to some people some of the distortion they hear from some amps is very unpleasant. Again, for people who don't experience these things, it doesn't seem possible.
Since you like research and arguments that support your beliefs and your own perceptions, you might be interested in research showing that people form beliefs first, then search for justifications to persuade others. Highly intelligent people are very good at producing long lists of all the reasons they are right. By such measure, it would appear you are very intelligent. However, related research shows that because highly intelligent people can produce such persuasive lists of reasons, they can become much more strongly convinced they are right, even when they are wrong. Again, there is good research supporting exactly what I just said.
In addition, I think if you look at it carefully, many reports from people who claim to hear distortion are developed independently of each other. In other words people often hear distortions long before they ever find and talk to other people that hear them, so it is not a process of them talking to each other first, then becoming persuaded by that.
As I have been saying recently in this thread, for people who do hear distortions, they are as real as they can be, and people tend to believe their own senses over lawyer-like arguments that they shouldn't. Because I apparently happen to be someone who hears more distortions than you do, I find it hard to believe arguments telling me my senses are lying to me. That's just the way it is. Human perception of reality is extremely compelling, and I think in reality you probably believe your own senses first, and form your arguments as a later process.
To summarize the bottom line, in my view things are not settled, and a well argued case by a smart lawyer-like persuader like you will never, I don't think, be able to settle it by argument alone. I vote for doing some more work on it. My senses tell me we can probably find something previously unearthed to explain what is going on.
Last edited:
Mark
Have you ever been tested in a lab environment with appropriate protocols to see if your asserted distortion sensitivity is repeatable?
Jay
Have you ever been tested in a lab environment with appropriate protocols to see if your asserted distortion sensitivity is repeatable?
Jay
No, but I'm sure I would find it interesting. Recently, I read some research stating that memory of small differences in sounds is retained only very briefly, but the memory that a difference was detected persists. If so, that could affect choice of methodology to measure human sensitivity to small distortions. I don't know if labs that test for hearing of distortion are incorporating the latest research by other groups into what happens in their lab. Usually, there is a lag between research in one field being published and become settled, and then having it find its way into, and become practically applied, in other fields. Sometimes the lag has been 10 - 20 years. Maybe you can tell me how labs are measuring human distortion perception sensitivity now?
Last edited:
Mark
To me the important part of your answer is the first sentence. Actually the first word. The rest is deflection and virtue signaling. As to modern protocols, let's ask Daniel and jcx; they're up on that.
Jay
To me the important part of your answer is the first sentence. Actually the first word. The rest is deflection and virtue signaling. As to modern protocols, let's ask Daniel and jcx; they're up on that.
Jay
That is an interesting attribution on your part, and there is considerable research into how such attributions are formed, and that belief in them by the holder is often reinforced by the overconfidence bias. I think if we are going to argue and make comments about each other in the way this seems to be going, then maybe both sides need to look more into research about how their human brains are producing and reinforcing their perceptions and beliefs. I may have something to learn that you already know, but I suspect that you could benefit from learning about more research from other fields yourself.
I am well aware of the overconfidence bias; I've read Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Both there original papers and the book they did. I'm not in the social science but they are very interesting. And yes, the last two sentences could be considered virtue signaling. As to overconfidence bias, look in the mirror. Your rationality, logic and vast experience is not germane. An objective test would let you know if you right.
Jay
Jay
On this, we agree. I just want to be sure the test is an accurate and reliable one, and not merely one we assume to be accurate, or have rationalized to be accurate.
Mark,
I enjoy your posts and your references to previous research especially in how we form opinions and how we rationalize them afterwards. I fully agree with that; the mind will go to great lengths to protect the sensitive ego.
However, if you say:
... I am not sure that is true. For instance, in this forum people often give a certain opinion about distortion and audibility that is clearly coming from reading something elsewhere on the forum or the 'net at large; sometimes I recognize the statement verbatim, and often it is clear that the person posting does not have the expertise to develop such a statement him/herself.
So I believe, but cannot prove, the opposite of you on this: that certain opinions spread like wildfire and do not in any way constitute any objective value. I believe it was Anatole France who once stated: 'If 50 million people believe something that is wrong, it is still wrong'.
Jan
I enjoy your posts and your references to previous research especially in how we form opinions and how we rationalize them afterwards. I fully agree with that; the mind will go to great lengths to protect the sensitive ego.
However, if you say:
... I am not sure that is true. For instance, in this forum people often give a certain opinion about distortion and audibility that is clearly coming from reading something elsewhere on the forum or the 'net at large; sometimes I recognize the statement verbatim, and often it is clear that the person posting does not have the expertise to develop such a statement him/herself.
So I believe, but cannot prove, the opposite of you on this: that certain opinions spread like wildfire and do not in any way constitute any objective value. I believe it was Anatole France who once stated: 'If 50 million people believe something that is wrong, it is still wrong'.
Jan
Jan, I believe there are multiple mechanisms that influence formation of, and confidence in, beliefs. The observation you describe may be significantly influenced by the mechanism of social proof.
But, for the purposes of our recent discussions here, I am more interested in cases where perceptions of distortion first form in isolated individuals.
When I grew up, there was no internet. I was so disappointed every time I bought a 45 record and heard the heavy distortion. Not knowing any better, I assumed the problem was solely with my record player, for no one would sell or intentionally buy a record so defective.
I won't claim that. Just general experimental control. I'm absolutely sure Mark and I complement each other here. Don't want to overstep my bounds nor undervalue Mark's contribution and scholarship.
Tests on people with claimed superpowers in hearing almost always show that they haven't got superpowers. Their response almost always is to say that the test was flawed. Curiously, the clearly much more flawed (due to simplicity, lack of controls etc.) tests which appear to allow them to exhibit their superpowers are never criticised by them in the same way. This is not to deny that there may be outliers who genuinely can hear things the rest of us do not, but I strongly suspect that the number of these is much smaller than they imagine.Markw4 said:
I don't know whether you have hearing superpowers. Neither do you. I assume I have not. I assume you probably have not.
This is my proposed test circuit. Each opamp has it's own final power supply regulators. A gain of 100 is used to allow the input resistors to have a noise level of 1 nV/rt hz. Gains will be trimmed to exactly 100. An NPO capacitor chip will be placed as close as possible to the power pins. There will be a ground plane on the PC card. If required the extra chip specific capacitors will be added.
I will build multiple of these circuits into one sealed aluminum box. Each will have it's own input and output RCA. They will be labelled 1-10. The power supply will be external.
I have on hand uA741, Ad797, NE5534, LME49710, Older Burson discrete, our in house all FET discrete and probably 4 more TBD.
Once built I'll let Bear rate the circuits.
Note these chips are not used at unity gain so the test has a not untypical gain for real world needs. The system is set back to final gain of 1. As it took 6 unity gain buffers to meet one persons detection threshold, then if the issue is THD a single one of these should exceed that.
I will build multiple of these circuits into one sealed aluminum box. Each will have it's own input and output RCA. They will be labelled 1-10. The power supply will be external.
I have on hand uA741, Ad797, NE5534, LME49710, Older Burson discrete, our in house all FET discrete and probably 4 more TBD.
Once built I'll let Bear rate the circuits.
Note these chips are not used at unity gain so the test has a not untypical gain for real world needs. The system is set back to final gain of 1. As it took 6 unity gain buffers to meet one persons detection threshold, then if the issue is THD a single one of these should exceed that.
Attachments
Last edited:
Should be of interest Ed. You probably will also do measurements, to be disclosed afterwards...?
Jan
Jan
Do you really want to open that subject?
What should I measure, THD, IM, S/N, weight, color, current drain or paranormal EMF?
Should I put a switchable EMI source in the case?
Ed, is Q2 backwards?
Would you consider adding a 5.6K resistor between the two opamp power pins, to get Ice up and (1/gm) down?
Would you consider adding a 5.6K resistor between the two opamp power pins, to get Ice up and (1/gm) down?
Yes, it is what I get for brainless cut and paste then replace!
I expect to get nasty and use a duplicate or two and even something a bit weirder, so the output bias may be in the cards and why not change 1/gm?
If needed building two boxes should not be a problem.
Im suggesting you artificially increase the current flowing in the power supply filtration transistors Q1 and Q2, to lower their output impedance by increasing their gm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.