Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?

[scottjoplin]

Obviously saying a piece of equipment sounds better is purely subjective, and couldn't it also sound subjectively worse depending on the source? That is another thing that seems to have been displayed in this thread.

 

[Jakob2]

<snip>

Right now that is time I don't have. My critical listening time is a couple of hours a month at the moment. Come the spring that should change, but such is the self-inflicted burden of a second brood.

I understand that, as I know that a lot of things are much more important than audio reproduction issues.
Just in case, it wasn't meant as critique just to point out that it is more about categorization and writing down what we hear when listening to reproduced soundfields. (even when listening to real soundfields)

<snip> I am no closer to a common lexicon but at least now I can be sure I focus on different things. Wrong or not, they are my preferences and I make no claims for if anyone else would enjoy my system.

That's the crucial point and one of the reasons why I so often emphasized the intersubject differences when it comes to the evaluation of music reproduction.

 

[Jakob2]

That’s not an explanation, that’s an opinion, and it should be taken as such.

You asked for an explanation and you got one; seems that you don't like it, but is that Mark4's problem?

comment shows again that you are not looking for any technical progress, but only attempting to create a group of cult followers. Likely for commercial purposes, by yourself and your (self admitted) business partner Jam. There’s nothing new in attempting to promote, under DIY pretences, a fake “secret sauce” in audio, in a desperate attempt to differentiate from the pack.

And now you're stating _your_ _opinion_ as fact, while constantly blaming others for not explicitely marking their opinions as such.

I think, more people are able to get that a member writing about his listening impressions is doing it based on a subjective basis, while it could be that something like your paragraph above will be taken more often as an objective factual description which it is not.

 

[Markw4]

If anyone else sees a problem with syn08's rule breaking, I would encourage bringing it to the attention of the moderators. Unless people speak up the rule breaking and attacks on the character of other members will continue.

 

[Cal Weldon]

The Moderators do not like returning to the same thread for the same reasons. Potential action is being discussed.

 

[billshurv]

I understand that, as I know that a lot of things are much more important than audio reproduction issues.
Just in case, it wasn't meant as critique just to point out that it is more about categorization and writing down what we hear when listening to reproduced soundfields. (even when listening to real soundfields)

I didn't take it as one. I was just being brutally honest about my current position.

That's the crucial point and one of the reasons why I so often emphasized the intersubject differences when it comes to the evaluation of music reproduction.

Crucial and I fear impossible to move forwards on meaning we are doomed to go around in circles.

 

[Evenharmonics]

This comment shows again that you are not looking for any technical progress, but only attempting to create a group of cult followers. Likely for commercial purposes, by yourself and your (self admitted) business partner Jam.

Ah, that explains.

The explanation is simple: I listened to the dac with the 7805 and with an LT1963. Also, in the past I listened to ADM7150 verses an opamp buffer voltage regulator (with a different dac).

But you won't disclose how your listening "test" was set up.

From my perspective, I don't owe you my time spent on research to prove I am justified in saying one things sounds better than another thing.

Right, it's your freedom. At the same time, it's their freedom when others challenge your extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

I think, more people are able to get that a member writing about his listening impressions is doing it based on a subjective basis, while it could be that something like your paragraph above will be taken more often as an objective factual description which it is not.

Then why is it that the one who posted his listening impressions keeps the listening "test" set up details a secret?

 

[Markw4]

I am not involved in any business with Jam or anyone else. Never said otherwise.

Someone may have assumed that. I can't help if other people jump to wrong conclusions.

 

[Evenharmonics]

I am not involved in any business with Jam or anyone else. Never said otherwise.

Are you planning on starting a DAC business?

 

[Markw4]

Perhaps I should mention Evenharmonics is on my ignore list.

Any serious questions from others would mostly likely get a reply.

 

[Evenharmonics]

Perhaps I should mention Evenharmonics is on my ignore list.

You've claimed that multiple times before while replying to my posts.

Any serious questions from others would mostly likely get a reply.

Dodging such question likely means "yes", which explains a lot.

 

[Jakob2]

@billshurv,

<snip>
Crucial and I fear impossible to move forwards on meaning we are doomed to go around in circles.

Could be, but usually trying to understand the different viewpoints (or different approaches) helps and maybe, using for example as a starter the sound samples from the EBU, it will be easier to get what others are talking about?!

@Evenharmonics,

<snip>
Then why is it that the one who posted his listening impressions keeps the listening "test" set up details a secret?

Using "then" in this context implies that there is a connection, but it ain't necessarilly so. And any "proof" that hiding takes place is missing too.

But anyway, again you could lead by good example. I'd very interesting to learn in detail about the level matched, bias controlled, double blind listening tests that you've done.

 

[scottjoplin]

How many people volunteer info on how they approach a critical listening session? Bob did when I mentioned I was interested how people make personal decisions regards what they look for in better/more accurate sound reproduction.

 

[Evenharmonics]

Using "then" in this context implies that there is a connection, but it ain't necessarilly so. And any "proof" that hiding takes place is missing too.

In your opinion of course.

But anyway, again you could lead by good example. I'd very interesting to learn in detail about the level matched, bias controlled, double blind listening tests that you've done.

What audibility claim did I post?
Not holding my breath.

 

[Markw4]

I'd very interesting to learn in detail about the level matched, bias controlled, double blind listening tests that you've done.

You might ask him about the SET power amp he likes, IIRC.

 

[indra1]

... What audibility claim did I post?...

For me it was not a purposefully done swap to compare so no placebo effect or anything. I just heard the changes that's all which did surprise me initially though.

That happened to me too during subjective comparison. Then when the levels are matched for testing amps, the results changed. Try it yourself.

 

[bimo]

I see...
Evenharmonics and syn08 use double standard to attack people

 

[Jakob2]

In your opinion of course.


What audibility claim did I post?
Not holding my breath.

Just a detailled description of your listening tests protocol will do; it is sufficient if you include the hypothesis(es) that you wanted to test....

 

[Evenharmonics]

I see...
Evenharmonics and syn08 use double standard to attack people

I attacked? In that case, indra1 just attacked me with post #396 which you left out. A glaring example of bias.

Just a detailled description of your listening tests protocol will do; it is sufficient if you include the hypothesis(es) that you wanted to test....

If you are referring to the comparison in the "attack" post by indra1, the subjective version is just that, no level matching, no visual bias controlled, no memory span compensation and no room mode accounted for. The level matched version was done by volt meter at the speaker terminal when amps were switched.

As for Markw4's secret listening test method, will you be asking the same?

 

[indra1]

... based on many pre and amps compared in level matched double blind test. Those that do sound different are the result of poor design or unusually high distortion which often is the result of poor design. ...

Pavel can perceive the difference on the 3 very low distortion preamps, however I do not find any of them to be poorly designed.

It actually is good for you if you can not hear a difference, no incentive to spend on more expensive parts like the AD797. Better yet when you find a cheaper parts like the TL072 to sound the same. Too bad for those who do hear.