Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Today, 04:16 PM   #10041
KBK is online now KBK  Canada
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada
Hint to contentious dood:

You don't win arguments by disagreeing with people. You make everyone win by agreeing with them. 'tis a simple human thing. It's a meandering path but it will get everyone there sooner. This is especially true in a box of individuals.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan. Sometimes the claims aren't extraordinary. Sometimes the weakness of men's minds are the culprit. Mass mentality has nothing to do with obviousness or truths.

Last edited by KBK; Today at 04:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:34 PM   #10042
mmerrill99 is online now mmerrill99
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Thanks for the advice KBK

But I'm not interested in 'winning' arguments - I'm more interested in truthful exchanges & truth about audio perception - I can't agree with a person's point, just to sway the discussion my way, when I don't think it is correct. I've been under no illusion that I could persuade those people who are the main debaters opposing my view but I would hope that some readers weigh up the points made on each side & judge for themselves? Hopefully, I can trigger some thinking outside of what passes for 'accepted wisdom' as I believe we still have a lot to learn about audio & the issues of measurements & DBTs are at the heart of the understandings about auditory perception & why the 'accepted wisdom' tends to be a hindrance to progress rather than a help

Sorry but that's just the way I am.

Another funny thing is that I'm not saying anything different than Jakob2
  Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:34 PM   #10043
KBK is online now KBK  Canada
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada
Originally Posted by DPH View Post
No no no no no no no no and no.

Placebo is not medicine. Placebo is placebo. There are myriad psychological effects that are attached to medical care but placebo does not and cannot have a direct mechanism by which it affects a disease. This accepts those psychological effects are extremely real to the person experiencing them, and does not require any form of insincerity.

The parallel between that and audio electronics for reproduction are alarmingly similar, nonetheless. And I wonder if we had the same relationship to our audio designers as we did in terms patient-physician relationship (where placebo is deception/dishonest).

Similarly, it's worrisome to see Deepak Chopra viewed as anything but a crank, well meaning though he may be.

(Not meant to go after you, Howie, and I get your gist, but am vehemently opposed to any suggestion of placebo as medicine)
the ear/brain combination has a pre-sound list to speed up speech cognition. Where we each hear the beginnings of a word and then overlay the known word on top and hear that, if the initial fit is good enough. We then construct the message more quickly. Part of the human sensory library system. That thing about our acts being about 80 milliseconds behind the original impulse, and so on. the body is rife with these systems. Feel, sound, touch, cognition, emotions, sight, etc. Learning is when we defeat such systems and learn anew. This is the core point of why the majority is wrong, to the tune of 97%.

Pareidolia is principally named after the concept as expressed in human sight, but it is paralleled throughout the human nervous sytem.

Placebo has some solid aspects tied to this, ie, inflammatory response, and so on. Placebo can work as medicine, even though yes, placebo is placebo. Depends on where we're each coming from in our application context of the usage of the word.

Hypnosis, for example and how it can enable adrenaline and other aspects that can make for superhuman strength attempts that will break the body. Placebo can do some amazing things, if viewed down that sort of path. As, what is hypnosis, exactly? Good luck defining it in the real world, outside of a dictionary. The more complex the question the greater the splay of required areas of expertise in order to define it well enough to solve...

The trick in hearing in audio is to not have the known sound forms overlay the heard sound and substitute for the new data that would be there..if it is not overlaid by the pre-load in the brain... of the known and patterned sound. humans and music are unique in the animal world. It is probably tied to this as it is near permanently sheep dipped in the ego I/O loop.

To learn as far and as best as is possible, one has to break themselves like a frightened child across the knee of a madman. The esoteric types inform you of this basic truism, so they should never be wholly dismissed.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan. Sometimes the claims aren't extraordinary. Sometimes the weakness of men's minds are the culprit. Mass mentality has nothing to do with obviousness or truths.

Last edited by KBK; Today at 04:44 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:38 PM   #10044
john curl is online now john curl  United States
diyAudio Member
john curl's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
As an audio manufacturer, my 'bias' should be obvious. However, I want to thank 99 and Jakob for putting straight facts about ABX testing forward here in a learned and thoughtful way. Of course, it should be obvious that ABX testing gives false negatives, and we have stated that for the last 40 years, but some people are 'biased' toward wanting audio products to all sound the same, and they will promote ABX even when it gets in the way of progress.
"Condemnation without Examination is Prejudice"

Last edited by john curl; Today at 04:41 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:38 PM   #10045
nezbleu is online now nezbleu  Canada
diyAudio Member
nezbleu's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Originally Posted by cliffforrest View Post
No it is not. Only less than a dozen contributors here so your hyperbole is silly.

From my tiny corner of the world your input is becoming a PITA.

I second that emotion.
"In the world of commerce and finance it is thought quite remarkable if a man is both clever and honest." -- Demosthenes
  Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:49 PM   #10046
hhoyt is online now hhoyt  United States
diyAudio Member
hhoyt's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Originally Posted by mmerrill99 View Post
Hhoyt has given you some evidence.
I asked him for the details of this - do you have the details?
The Clark tests were numerous and are a matter of public record, and I experienced many of them firsthand, having been the engineer setting them up. I have also conducted tests involving hundreds of recording engineers at AES and ITA conventions, some being well-known engineers who possibly made the material you use for references. Have you any actual experience which is the equal? These tests were conducted some 15-20 years ago and I do not have the test records, perhaps Richard Clark does but he is not in the audio industry anymore.

I have voiced my objections to aspects of AB and ABX testing, and agree it can deliver a preponderance of negative results if not conducted correctly, however my actual experience (not conjecture) says when there is indeed a difference between A and B these tests do deliver positives.

You can conjecture that the A and B sources must have to be very different for a well-conducted ABX to show positives, but you would be wrong. When levels are matched yet the sources not identical in some respect and a broad range of material is presented over time, a trained listener will indeed be able to render a positive result, I have seen it happen many times. Some people are so good at critical listening they achieve near perfect scores repeatedly while 99% of others do not. As a result of my involvement I have a few conclusions of my own:

1) For an ABX test to give more than null results, the listener must be trained, rested and relaxed and have time to audition as they see fit.

2) Other than for research purposes there is zero reason for a bias to be intentionally introduced such as the ability so see what one is listening to. This type of test is then a control for evaluating factors affecting the test, not a valid test of listener sensitivity.

3) Many adults have damaged or degraded hearing so the sensory apparatus is poor, yet they have not had it evaluated and believe their hearing is as good as anyone else.

4) Many audiophiles and recording engineers have a greatly inflated idea of their own critical listening abilities. Additionally most of the most consistent positive results we saw were by recording engineers who master highly regarded recordings...If these tests were so biased for null results, how did they do that? Perhaps it was the training and years of experience?

We concluded that being trained to listen for specific problems was the #1 factor affecting test results. For example, a Dolby engineer was perfect at picking out slight Dolby mistracking, a vinyl mastering engineer easily picked out slight inter-groove crosstalk the rest of us did not, etc... Once again, when pointed out the issue was easier for the rest of us to notice. I am sure you amp designers have developed the ability to hear minute amounts of crossover distortion which most of us would miss.

If one of you thinks there has to be a better way to conduct testing, please propose, conduct and report a new type of test, we would then have actual data to discuss. It is easy to sit back and critique the results of others tests, but it would be much more helpful to do tests yourself and let us know how they come out...like PMA is doing.

Howard Hoyt, CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC - www.wxyc.org
  Reply With Quote


John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part IIIHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:51 PM.

Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio