Some do. No reason not to as long as controls aren't broken and scores can't be altered post facto. Of course, in many test formats (e.g., ABX), you can go back to any of the references as a "known" at any time.
I note that the lack of feedback didn't inhibit either of us in the Hawksford test...
That works best for me too.
Unfortunately, for development purposes, this is not an efficient way to evaluate designs and components, I'd need years with my limited spare time.
That's one main reason why I like to listen to those who have demonstrated over decades that they can and do build products which are successful in the marketplace, and which maintain also a high value in the second hand market.
Especially JC and CH who report differences of components and design solutions are more credible to me than all the "differences do not exist, it's all imagination" talk.
Why should these guys, in a sighted test, prefer say one resistor type over the other, when costing almost the same? Or dimiss one time a cheaper component, and in another evaluation a more expensive one? Perhaps even from the same manufacturer? Or prefer one inductor value over the other, same type, same price, just two different values?
This is hilarious. I'd really like to be able to listen to them without all this "you are deluded" talk.
And no, I do not need someone who protects me from their contributions or the financial consequences this may have for me when buying one brand of resistors over another.
I like customer protection activities when buying detergent, car polish or pet food though.
You've answered your own question. They're working in a minuscule niche fashion market, and that's the stuff you do in those markets. If there's no mystery and straightforward engineering achieves exactly the same function, where's the room for gurus and designers?
T:
As you know this came about [this lap] as a result of JC teasing Sy and his ABX posse. We all know which protagonists are certain to take their hobby-horses out for yet another long ride as they trot out every time there is a possibility for yet another amble along these well worn ABX tracks. We should all simply refuse to play simply because the hobby horse is now totally exhausted - despite the determination of the riders.
A more positive approach would be for two camps to be formed and each to here design a DIY preamp which is close to perfect [in their respective joint view]. The resulting preamp can then be tested - probably in about 14 years time - and then those who are left on this earth can make their minds up as to who wins!
The winning sample could then be tested in all ways then possible against an original 'Blowtorch'Fortunately I will never know the findings as I may well have lost interest in Audio [other than as a visual pastime]before reaching the grand old age of 84!!!.......But I can be sure that certain by then dim-eyed, deafer, more cranky old men will still be riding their skeletal hobby-horses....and as for the ghost-riders in the sky? Lets really mix the metaphor by saying that their appearance would put the cat among the pigeons.
Last edited:
Dear Sy,
I must beg forgiveness of my ignorance, I re-read and still came only up with references to work done by the ABX crowd.
As you know, I am greatly interested in formats other than ABX that address the criticisms rightly levelled at ABX and thus would allow a greater degree of confidence in the results.
Could you provide some references that illustrate how this new test method avoids the common pitfalls of ABX?
Ciao T
I must beg forgiveness of my ignorance, I re-read and still came only up with references to work done by the ABX crowd.
As you know, I am greatly interested in formats other than ABX that address the criticisms rightly levelled at ABX and thus would allow a greater degree of confidence in the results.
Could you provide some references that illustrate how this new test method avoids the common pitfalls of ABX?
Ciao T
?????
Neither CH nor JC had their first success because they were gurus or well known designers. Maybe they are gurus now, it's not me who decides it.
They had success because they did use straightforward engineering AND, where engineering/measuring did not gave satisfying answers, they used their ears too.
If it would have been as easy as you are stating, why go through all this hassle? Identifying, buying, evaluating passive parts and circuit topologies, etc? Just competently design according to the meters (for a line stage, this is as easy as it gets, I would say) and tell people that for their money you did hundreds of listening sessions swapping components.
And why, tell me, there are components which are almost impossible to discern by measurement from others, and nevertheless have been identified by several audio designers as being superior wrt sound quality to others independently from each other? Even in the pre internet era?
Or, in other cases, it was not measurable then, and later on it could be measured, i.e. the measurements afterwards confirmed their findings?
Or why exist some (expensive) gear from those designers, which did not became "classics" with high prices in the second hand markets? JC made some good posts about this.
You have built your own, easy straightforward world where everything is easily explainable. And any market success you cannot explain with your meters is easily put into the "marketing, guru, bribed reviewers, ....., niche market, deluded people who spend tons of money for medicre gear, ...."-corner.
I'm afraid i'ts not as easy.
Sy,
I understand your format, though most of the debate I followed seemed to centre around Lipshitz/Vanderkoy/Tiefenbrunn, which was ABX.
I would still like to have the reference or alternatively an expose from you, which illustrates how your "new" method avoids the pitfalls cited by me for ABX.
Your answer to my posted criticism was to deflect it by claiming you were not talking about ABX anyway. So Please illustrate that the criticisms I level at ABX (lack of controls, poor experimental setup, statistical bias towards null results, indirect section towards highly prejudiced and thus unusable test subjects) are not applicable to your method.
Ciao T
I understand your format, though most of the debate I followed seemed to centre around Lipshitz/Vanderkoy/Tiefenbrunn, which was ABX.
I would still like to have the reference or alternatively an expose from you, which illustrates how your "new" method avoids the pitfalls cited by me for ABX.
Your answer to my posted criticism was to deflect it by claiming you were not talking about ABX anyway. So Please illustrate that the criticisms I level at ABX (lack of controls, poor experimental setup, statistical bias towards null results, indirect section towards highly prejudiced and thus unusable test subjects) are not applicable to your method.
Ciao T
None of those are inherent to ABX or any other controlled testing format.
strawman alert
fascinating when lack of understanding of correct experimental designs is used to demean proper experimental designs by using said illogic to discredit experimental designs as being deficient due to irrelevant and misleading strawman arguments having no merit whatsoever... Oh... that's what you said...
goes along with all the mysticism and fluff of the high end I guess
John L.
fascinating when lack of understanding of correct experimental designs is used to demean proper experimental designs by using said illogic to discredit experimental designs as being deficient due to irrelevant and misleading strawman arguments having no merit whatsoever... Oh... that's what you said...
goes along with all the mysticism and fluff of the high end I guess
John L.
Zinsula, you show a significant appreciation of the situation. I FAILED to make good designs, by just relying on specifying the best IC's, indifferent caps, IM only measurements, as early as 1971, when the Grateful Dead ultimately rejected the studio board that we made for them at Alembic, and went back to modified open loop tube Ampex Electronics and Mac 3500 power amps (tube).
I was almost desperate! But I was still employed elsewhere, including doing the sound processing for a Rock film 'Fillmore' in Hollywood (they just about banned me there for being so difficult and precise), hanging out with Kelsey and Morris in London, who made the sound system for Pink Floyd (1972) and finally getting a second chance to make electronics for the Grateful Dead, for the 'Wall of Sound' system. I then tried Matti Otala's suggestions to make my gain modules (the JC-2 line stage) and it was successful, not only with them, but with Mark Levinson. The rest is history.
I was almost desperate! But I was still employed elsewhere, including doing the sound processing for a Rock film 'Fillmore' in Hollywood (they just about banned me there for being so difficult and precise), hanging out with Kelsey and Morris in London, who made the sound system for Pink Floyd (1972) and finally getting a second chance to make electronics for the Grateful Dead, for the 'Wall of Sound' system. I then tried Matti Otala's suggestions to make my gain modules (the JC-2 line stage) and it was successful, not only with them, but with Mark Levinson. The rest is history.
OK This is what I have found, in my experience, how to make the best electronics possible, all else being equal.
1. Just using purely passive high quality parts is as good or better than almost any amplified electronics. (What I use in my office for a preamp)
2. IF you have to use electronic amplification, then use a minimum path, as linear as possible, zero global feedback, and a very high open loop bandwidth. (Blowtorch, Vendetta first stage)
3. If you MUST use global feedback, use as fast and as high open loop bandwidth as possible. This is important! Also make the circuits as linear as possible, within their marketing constraints. (JC-2, Vendetta second stage, Constellation second stage, JC-1 power amp, JC-3 power amp, JC-80 preamp)
4. IF you must use IC's, try for fast and video ready ones, IF POSSIBLE. If not, especially for extra low noise, use the best parts that you can find, and SUBJECTIVELY listen to each and every one type, and select what sounds best to you. (JC-3 phono preamp)
In every case, use the best passive parts, best power supply, capacitors, connectors, wires, etc that you find works for you, and usually, others in the field.
If you follow these suggestions, you will normally be ahead of the pack in making an audio quality product, be it for yourself, or for the general public.
1. Just using purely passive high quality parts is as good or better than almost any amplified electronics. (What I use in my office for a preamp)
2. IF you have to use electronic amplification, then use a minimum path, as linear as possible, zero global feedback, and a very high open loop bandwidth. (Blowtorch, Vendetta first stage)
3. If you MUST use global feedback, use as fast and as high open loop bandwidth as possible. This is important! Also make the circuits as linear as possible, within their marketing constraints. (JC-2, Vendetta second stage, Constellation second stage, JC-1 power amp, JC-3 power amp, JC-80 preamp)
4. IF you must use IC's, try for fast and video ready ones, IF POSSIBLE. If not, especially for extra low noise, use the best parts that you can find, and SUBJECTIVELY listen to each and every one type, and select what sounds best to you. (JC-3 phono preamp)
In every case, use the best passive parts, best power supply, capacitors, connectors, wires, etc that you find works for you, and usually, others in the field.
If you follow these suggestions, you will normally be ahead of the pack in making an audio quality product, be it for yourself, or for the general public.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.