Thank you jcx - I must admit I sometimes get tired to repeat the message again and again and again. I think the basic issue here is that if you are not aware of how perception works, it's almost impossible to accept that your own perception can be flawed. After all, 'I hear what I hear', right? Not, of course.
jan
Extraordinary claims (the one here being that I don't hear what I hear) require extraordinary evidence. Got any?
Good suggestion Bonsai. Or a variant of it:
Load the amplifier with the set of speakers you consider as a difficult load, and use the attenuator to tap a recording. Do the same with another amplifier or other amplifiers.
Level match the recordings (it is easy to detail level match –rms or peak- the recording level, not so easy to level match speaker level through SPL meter).
Do the comparison by listening to the recordings at the same playback level (and the recordings can be code named so helping in BT or DBT ).
George
Last edited:
More than you can read in your lifetime.
Google 'perception research' or something similar.
Jan
I'm already fairly well up to speed on perception - you could try some of Donald Hoffman's papers or his book 'Visual Intelligence' - Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See: Donald D. Hoffman: 9780393319675: Amazon.com: Books
You'll note that visual perception researchers do not claim anything remotely similar to 'you do not see what you see'.
You'll note that visual perception researchers do not claim anything remotely similar to 'you do not see what you see'.
Last edited:
To me, the whole concept that seeing what you are listening to biases the test seems like a very general and questionable thesis.
Seeing what's playing at the moment means absolutely nothing to me, and for a very simple reason. It's well known that I for example hold Harman/Kardon in high regard. However, just as I have heard some sonic gems from them, I have also heard a few very much so-so units, not bad but not much different from what the competion is offering for less money. As an example, their 980 model, currently one of two integrates amps they sell, nominally has it all, it is very load tolerant, it could drive a shoe box if you want it for a speaker, it has reasonably good measurements, solid slew rate of around 80 V/uS, reasonable power output (if memroy serves, 75 Wrms/8 Ohms per side), etc. And it's new, so it should embody their entire experiebce gathered thus far.
The trouble is, it just falls short of what's expected by reasonable thinking. It's all right, it's truly load tolerant, but overall, it's bland, it's simply not an amp I'd want to have at home. It has no obvious faults, but it doesn't have the whole as a rendition you'd remember. Its only point of rememberance is that it is unusally well built for its price class, but while nice and a definite plus, that's not what I am looking for as the winning point.
I've had experience similar to this from other manufacturers as well, for example, Accuphase has let me down sonically on several occasions, as have a number of others. Some of which were damn expensive.
I am not saying that everybody can detach themselves in the same way and be trully irreverent to names and price tags, but I know I can, they mean literally nothing to me. All the more so since I have been "ambushed" by a few very ungainly looking devices, which visually proclaimed disater, but sonically did way better than they look (and they looked really poorly, like some slapped together home made junk, literally).
And I feel reasonably sure that I am not the only one here, let alone at large, who can do that. The initial assumption that people are by default impressed by names and prices is not altogether wrong, just wrong enought not to be a law. In other words, it is not proof.
It's just another mantra.
Seeing what's playing at the moment means absolutely nothing to me, and for a very simple reason. It's well known that I for example hold Harman/Kardon in high regard. However, just as I have heard some sonic gems from them, I have also heard a few very much so-so units, not bad but not much different from what the competion is offering for less money. As an example, their 980 model, currently one of two integrates amps they sell, nominally has it all, it is very load tolerant, it could drive a shoe box if you want it for a speaker, it has reasonably good measurements, solid slew rate of around 80 V/uS, reasonable power output (if memroy serves, 75 Wrms/8 Ohms per side), etc. And it's new, so it should embody their entire experiebce gathered thus far.
The trouble is, it just falls short of what's expected by reasonable thinking. It's all right, it's truly load tolerant, but overall, it's bland, it's simply not an amp I'd want to have at home. It has no obvious faults, but it doesn't have the whole as a rendition you'd remember. Its only point of rememberance is that it is unusally well built for its price class, but while nice and a definite plus, that's not what I am looking for as the winning point.
I've had experience similar to this from other manufacturers as well, for example, Accuphase has let me down sonically on several occasions, as have a number of others. Some of which were damn expensive.
I am not saying that everybody can detach themselves in the same way and be trully irreverent to names and price tags, but I know I can, they mean literally nothing to me. All the more so since I have been "ambushed" by a few very ungainly looking devices, which visually proclaimed disater, but sonically did way better than they look (and they looked really poorly, like some slapped together home made junk, literally).
And I feel reasonably sure that I am not the only one here, let alone at large, who can do that. The initial assumption that people are by default impressed by names and prices is not altogether wrong, just wrong enought not to be a law. In other words, it is not proof.
It's just another mantra.
Hmmm, looks like we're getting bogged down in the quagmire of Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, yet again ...
And when John (and I for that matter) say that we trust our ears, let's not take that too literally please.
What I believe John means, and I certainly do, is that I trust my entire evaluation of the sound I hear, from my ears to my brain, all in one package. Neither is sufficient on its own.
What I believe John means, and I certainly do, is that I trust my entire evaluation of the sound I hear, from my ears to my brain, all in one package. Neither is sufficient on its own.
Actually it is as close to a law as it gets. Remember that for instance gravity is 'just a theory' but since all experiments confirm the theory it's pretty close to a law.
Same with perception being at odds with objective reality (and please, it would be nice if you could restrain yourself to now start picking apart 'objective reality' - you know what I mean).
All perception research confirms that even people being well aware of the pitfalls still are subject to it, nicely illustrated for instance with that famous Floyd Toole experiment, to mention just one.
So in that sense it's pretty much a 'law', yes.
Denying that is to close your mind to all the research that confirms it.
Jan
When you are designing an amp, and want to figure out what is the audible impact of, say, 2 different CSS, or a CSS instead a resistance, are-you really going to organize a magical show, with black curtains and scantily clad assistants to put you blindfolds ?
And repeat the show all along the long process to bring the amp to the point you want to achieve , at each step ?
Of course, you can be influenced by any previous measurement you had done. Reason why i listen first, now, and measure after.
In fact, more i advance i age, more i listen, and, because the measurements correlate my feelings most of the time, less i measure
It save time and, on my experience, that i cannot share, provide better results *with me*.
Because it is faster, when i have identified what is wrong in a solution, to address-it in the right direction. That will take a lot of time and efforts if you walk blind in the dark with only abstract numbers to guide-you that don't always reveal the evils, because they are only added windows to your...perception.
And i will answer again to the ayatollahs of total objectivity and absolute science, that this HiFi game is pure magic, illusion, to try to make believe to your senses, fooling them the best as possible, that there is a Piano in your empty listening room. The right moment to close your eyes, in order to help your brain to create an imaginary visual landscape.
And repeat the show all along the long process to bring the amp to the point you want to achieve , at each step ?
Of course, you can be influenced by any previous measurement you had done. Reason why i listen first, now, and measure after.
In fact, more i advance i age, more i listen, and, because the measurements correlate my feelings most of the time, less i measure
It save time and, on my experience, that i cannot share, provide better results *with me*.
Because it is faster, when i have identified what is wrong in a solution, to address-it in the right direction. That will take a lot of time and efforts if you walk blind in the dark with only abstract numbers to guide-you that don't always reveal the evils, because they are only added windows to your...perception.
And i will answer again to the ayatollahs of total objectivity and absolute science, that this HiFi game is pure magic, illusion, to try to make believe to your senses, fooling them the best as possible, that there is a Piano in your empty listening room. The right moment to close your eyes, in order to help your brain to create an imaginary visual landscape.
Last edited:
How serious are you about really knowing if there is an audible difference?
That determines to what lengths you want to go.
It's really up to you.
But telling yourself that you alone are so much better in objective perception than those other 6,999,999 individual humans on this planet is stretching it a bit, to be friendly.
Unless you're a mutant, of course, then all bets are off. Are you?
Jan
That determines to what lengths you want to go.
It's really up to you.
But telling yourself that you alone are so much better in objective perception than those other 6,999,999 individual humans on this planet is stretching it a bit, to be friendly.
Unless you're a mutant, of course, then all bets are off. Are you?
Jan
You mean like David Tepper, Steven Cohen, John Paulson, James Simons, or Kenneth Griffin ?
Absolutely - 100% agree! Stereo reproduction is one of the greatest make-believe in entertainment probably. And I and millions of others love it!
And it can only work because of that perception thing, that people try to shovel under the carpet when it becomes unconvenient for their own ego.
The word 'Janus' comes to mind....
Jan
Last edited:
When you really get the sound right, then there is no need for any "close your eyes" games. In fact, it will impossible not to perceive a piano there, the illusion created will be so strong that no matter how you listen to the sound it will always remain convincing ...
So there is no delay?
Nanoseconds. Irrelevant to the frequencies we're dealing with. Important for microwave design.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.