The same that i´ve mentioned to hhyot recently and described in this thread before.
"Not possible" meant, that the preamplifiers were just used as preamplifiers in the various reproduction systems, as in none of them was any switching device between preamplifier and power amplifier was included.
@ PMA,
Don´t think that it is comparable. In our case the main idea was to avoide the "test effect" completely, just let some experienced listener do what they are used to do, namely to compare to devices and to report which one they prefer (if any was preferred).
Choosing the listeners was a crucial point as i had to ensure that all would prefer the same kind of reproduction characteristics as they had - to reach a significant result -all had to prefer the same variant that i preferred due to the small sample size. At the end, after deblinding, it shows that indeed all had preferred the same variant.
Nothing wrong with being deeply convinced but we know that it isn´t sufficient as evidence for the fact.
That can be an advantage but can be a disadvantage as well, but first of all there is the elephant in the room as scientific evidence (since the 1950s) exists showing that the ABX - protocol makes it more difficult for the participants in comparison to other test protocols.
The "fast switching" property isn´t bound to ABX as it can be used (and is used) with other protocols as well.
I´d say that in our test approach the practical relevance is higher as the comparisons were done in the same way as usual, as no somewhat artificial test situation was created and therefore listeners did not have to do 10, 20 or even more trials.
That's what I thought - so it's not the "preamp test method" that Jakob2 is describing - in fact very far from it.
It just seems that there is a lax use of language here - just as there is a lax use of controls in suggested ABX testing.
I agree, but I have not seen you presenting any "fact". No complete test description, no test files, no results, but a debate. I am sorry, but to me the debate is not enough and it is not a target to me.
Yes, the mechanisms of perception in both vision & audition do share a number of similar mechanisms & AFAIK, even some brain centers but there are also differences. However the knowledge in the field of visual perception is far in advance of the knowledge in the field of auditory perception & auditory perception actually has learned a lot from the known mechanisms of visual perception.
PMA, i beg your pardon, but you have to be more specific. For what did i nor present any "fact" ?
Wrt the preamplifier test i wrote a description (inluding the measured numbers of both variants) of the test approach overall several times and reported the results.
So, you must mean something different, but i again i don´t really understand what missing "test description" or missing "test files" you are referring to.
In a certain sense, I empathize with PMA as what he (& many here) want is a definitive listening test which truly can be trusted to audibly differentiate between devices/files.
I understand the frustration in not having such a listening test & the defensiveness in trying to defend one's chosen test methodology as being somehow the answer.
When people point out the various flaws in such chosen methodology, it's natural to be defensive & to accuse the bringer of bad news with not having anything definitive to offer.
I think, in some way, this is what PMA is leveling at you, Jakob2 - not offering the final solution?
Brian Eno's work has had a profound effect upon my photographic digital post production work, in that I use Photoshop as a 10 channel optical recording studio for compositing tiny snippets of 16bit visual information in a manner which is virtually lossless. Eno has often said that his instrument of choice is the recording studio itself, for processing thoughts into music, and this, plus his theory of unseen and unforeseen probabilities has helped me explore many a cul-de-sac only to find a way out and back to the main road of my creative flow.
And I confess to having listened to Eno for over 40 years, and I love his work, I never seem to tire of it. Listen to 'Thursday Afternoon' if you can. It is immensely deep and rich in multiple layers of sound full of sonic textures you can barely make out, and of course, the ear invents musical events that appear in and out of the mix, in that somehow it never sounds quite the same twice.
Another musician everyone should consider - deeply - is Jon Hassell who is the most incredibly talented trumpet player, and someone has made fantastic collaborative music with Eno in the past.
Me? I'm just a talentless idiot with some homemade electric guitars, a clutch of pedals and a looper. But that does not stop me trying - anything to ward off the onset of dementia, eh?
Hi tapestryofsound,
Interesting.
My father was a well known photographer in his own right. I often accompanied him as a kid. He expertise was as an industrial photographer, but also found himself at disasters (once with me along - it was a horrible plane crash at Toronto's Pearson Airport in the 1970's). I saw things other humans shouldn't have to see.
As well known as he was, I never once heard him claim to be a "master photographer". He just did what he did all over the world. My perspective on his work was unique and I learned a lot about life and relying on yourself from him. I also learned that it's easier to do your best work when you haven't made high claims for your work ability. This also made it much easier to get along with other people.
Being a busy photographer took a toll on his home life. Probably much the same as anyone good at doing work they pursue. He was away from home a lot, for weeks at a time sometimes. I can only imagine you have paid a high cost to be one of the best, but outspoken photographers.
-Chris
Interesting.
My father was a well known photographer in his own right. I often accompanied him as a kid. He expertise was as an industrial photographer, but also found himself at disasters (once with me along - it was a horrible plane crash at Toronto's Pearson Airport in the 1970's). I saw things other humans shouldn't have to see.
As well known as he was, I never once heard him claim to be a "master photographer". He just did what he did all over the world. My perspective on his work was unique and I learned a lot about life and relying on yourself from him. I also learned that it's easier to do your best work when you haven't made high claims for your work ability. This also made it much easier to get along with other people.
Being a busy photographer took a toll on his home life. Probably much the same as anyone good at doing work they pursue. He was away from home a lot, for weeks at a time sometimes. I can only imagine you have paid a high cost to be one of the best, but outspoken photographers.
-Chris
Anatech, some of us ARE 'masters' at some subject. It is not 'bragging' or excessive boasting to bring it up about ourselves when it is necessary to clarify our position. Phony or pseudo diminishing of our abilities or accomplishments in a particular area doesn't hold up well either. We just have to discourse on the subject with some civility and professional decorum to be most effective.
I have only once in my life made the claim of being a 'master photographer' and that was today, in this thread, on this forum, so as to clarify my position.
I relinquished my professional practice fifteen years ago. I made a modest living, usually from hand to mouth, having spent most of my creative life consumed by self doubt. There were some good times, and other times I wished I had never been born with such an unnatural affinity for visual imagery. I seldom talk about my current work, as it is virtually impossible to describe unless seen. In 2020, I will at the age of 65, have my first ever one man show. It has been a long slow painful haul.
So I find your assumptions about me both hurtful and insulting.
Sorry you feel the discomfort. Probably best not to give what was said much weight. It is well known that people's brains, all people's, construct stories of cause and effect based on whatever limited information is available. Although the processes that create the stories are hidden from conscious awareness, the stories themselves are perceived by it. The further default behavior of brains is to believe the stories as though the are the whole truth and factual. There is no way to stop the constructions from occurring since all human brains produce them automatically. However, the default of believing them is a point where they can be intercepted. Unfortunately, most people are not even aware of how such beliefs come to be formed, much less the need to question their accuracy when they do.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.