WSJ Article On Expectations, Outcomes, And The Value Of DBT
George Evans
of
The Wall Street Journal has much to say to the audiophile audience,
even though high-end audio equipment is not it's principal focus.
(Copied below with the author's permission).
Enjoy,
GE
--------------------------------------------------
SCIENCE JOURNAL
Expectations May Alter Outcomes Far More Than We Realize
By Sharon Begley
845 words
7 November 2003
The Wall Street Journal
B1
English
(Copyright (c) 2003, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
BRITISH PHILOSOPHER Bertrand Russell was only half joking when he
described the powerful effect that the nationality of a scientist can
have on lab rats. "Animals studied by Americans rush about
frantically, with an incredible display of hustle and pep, and at last
achieve the desired result by chance," he wrote in 1927. "Animals
observed by Germans sit still and think, and at last evolve the
solution out of their inner consciousness."
Seventy-six years on, scientists have documented the power of
expectations, not only of lab researchers but also of teachers,
athletic coaches, judges and work supervisors.
"Expectation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," says Robert
Rosenthal, professor of psychology at the University of California,
Riverside. "When teachers have been led to expect better intellectual
performance from their students, they tend to get it. When coaches are
led to expect better athletic performance from their athletes, they
tend to get it. When behavioral researchers are led to expect a
certain response from their research subjects, they tend to get it."
Expectation effects, also known as the Pygmalion effect, have been
documented time and again (479 studies have found that teachers'
expectations affect how students do, for instance). But nailing down
exactly how expectations are conveyed to students, athletes or
research volunteers through the nonverbal, subtle and usually
unintentional messages that Prof. Rosenthal calls "covert
communication" has been much tougher.
MORE ALARMING IS how little-known the expectation effect is. And that
means there is a good possibility that some of the effects we
attribute to a particular cause -- from the benefits of smaller class
sizes to the health-improving effects of wealth -- actually reflect
the power of expectations.
The power of expectations in the classroom is downright scary. In a
typical experiment, elementary-school teachers were told that one
group of kids had done extraordinarily well on a test that predicts
intellectual "blooming," and so would make remarkable academic gains.
The test seemed prescient: After a few months, the "bloomers" it
identified had achieved statistically significant gains over the other
students.
In reality, there was no such test. To the contrary: The kids the
teachers thought were bloomers included students from every ability
level as measured by a nonverbal intelligence test. So did the
supposed nonbloomers. "The only difference was in the mind, and
expectations, of the teacher," says Prof. Rosenthal. Yet those
expectations produced clear academic differences.
Teachers said they viewed the bloomers as better adjusted, more
affectionate and less in need of social approval. That leads to real
differences in how teachers treated their students -- the covert
communication. Teachers with high expectations for their students
"teach [them] more and teach it more warmly," Prof. Rosenthal writes
in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science. And they
"tend to give greater opportunities for responding and more
differentiated feedback" to these students, rather than a pat, "That's
great, Ben." The first two factors affect student performance the
most.
EXPECTATION EFFECTS are not confined to human expect-ees. In one set
of studies, 12 experimenters were each given five rats. Six
experimenters were told that their rats were of a genetic strain that
learned like long-tailed geniuses; the other six were told that their
rats were dolts. The experimenters then spent five days training their
rats to run a maze.
From the first day, the rats identified as bright ran the maze better
-- and kept getting better.
You can guess the punch line: all the rats belonged to the same
strain. They differed only in the experimenters' expectations for
them. In this case, the covert communication probably came from the
way experimenters with "smart" rats acted: They felt more relaxed and
enthusiastic as they worked with the rats, talked to them less (fewer
outbursts of "you stupid rat!") and handled them more.
"The extra handling of animals believed to be brighter may have
contributed to the superior learning," says Prof. Rosenthal.
The size of the expectation effect varies, but is always statistically
significant, and sometimes big. For teachers, high expectations can
raise student performance 30%. For rats, they can improve maze
learning 65%.
The power of expectations is the reason studies of new therapies are
"double-blind"; not even the investigators know which patients
received the active compound and which a dummy pill. Otherwise,
expecting a new drug to be beneficial might subtly influence how
investigators read an X-ray or assess a psychological condition.
But it is not always possible to eliminate the effect of expectations.
That casts some findings, especially in the social sciences, in a new
and curious light. All sorts of things are reported to boost student
achievement, from using a varied vocabulary with little kids to
keeping class size small. But if teachers or parents expect these
things to make kids smarter, might the improvement actually reflect
those expectations?
Humans may not be quite as impressionable as Russell's rats, but we're
awfully close.
---
You can e-mail me at science...@wsj.com.
Document J000000020031107dzb70003u
© 2003 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as
Factiva). All
rights reserved.
Sharon Begley
Science columnist
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
NY NY 10281-1003
Steven Sullivan
> This brief article (copied below) from the 11/07/03 electronic edition
> of
> The Wall Street Journal has much to say to the audiophile audience,
> even though high-end audio equipment is not it's principal focus.
> (Copied below with the author's permission).
> The power of expectations is the reason studies of new therapies are
> "double-blind"; not even the investigators know which patients
> received the active compound and which a dummy pill. Otherwise,
> expecting a new drug to be beneficial might subtly influence how
> investigators read an X-ray or assess a psychological condition.
> But it is not always possible to eliminate the effect of expectations.
> That casts some findings, especially in the social sciences, in a new
> and curious light. All sorts of things are reported to boost student
> achievement, from using a varied vocabulary with little kids to
> keeping class size small. But if teachers or parents expect these
> things to make kids smarter, might the improvement actually reflect
> those expectations?
> Humans may not be quite as impressionable as Russell's rats, but we're
> awfully close.
Interesting! But IME audio components seem immune to the expectation effect. No matter how
optimistic my approach, my DVD-A player refuses to do proper bass management of a few of my 4.0
DVD-As. But I will try talking more nicely to my subwoofer from here on, just in case.
;>
--
-S.
Lou
a cap, a resistor is a resistor, and a cable is a cable, hears differences
when he really believes that everyone taking about how great this or that
cap/resistor/coil/cable is full of dung? That has been my experience. My
expectations were that none of it would matter, but one by one I was proven
wrong, and I was invested in being right, thus wanted anything BUT to be
wrong!!! I think a LOT of the DBT's are done by people who are well
intended, but how use gear with bad synergy and low resolution. In my
system, much to my desires to the opposite, I have found time and again that
this, that, or the other thing DOES make a difference. I still think fancy
clocks are a rip, but I have to admit, I have yet to try one, so I could be
wrong, but I am invested in them not working. So, if I heard one, and it
worked, I'd have to admit that I was wrong. So, with me it seems to work in
the inverse, I want these things to not matter, but some of them do...
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"George Evans" <george...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lUSrb.120105$9E1.591966@attbi_s52...
> © 2003 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as
Steven Sullivan
> Ok, so what does it mean when a technician who has been taught that a cap is
> a cap, a resistor is a resistor, and a cable is a cable, hears differences
> when he really believes that everyone taking about how great this or that
> cap/resistor/coil/cable is full of dung? That has been my experience. My
> expectations were that none of it would matter, but one by one I was proven
> wrong, and I was invested in being right, thus wanted anything BUT to be
> wrong!!! I think a LOT of the DBT's are done by people who are well
> intended, but how use gear with bad synergy and low resolution.
I think a LOT of statements about DBTs are made by people who don't
understand what is meant by perceptual bias, and who believe,
for example, that it always has to be conscious.
If you think 'synergy' and 'resolution' are the main culprits
in negative DBT results, why don't you run a DBT of your own,
using synergistic and high-resolution components, and tell
us if the results differ from, say, the one run on
audiophiles salesman Steve Zipser using his choice of
high-end system.
--
-S.
cerrot
I had made a comment to a fellow audiophile just the other day at how
powerful the power of suggestion is.
Case in point: I recently upgraded speaker cables from $79 run of the
mill (okay, manufactured and recommended by my speaker manufacturer). I
had problems with them (oscillation, due to shortening & termination as
I have a new sound room), and demo'ed substantially better cables (Tara
Labs RSC AIR 2, approx. $950--already broken in as they are demo's) and
the improvement knocked my sox off. The single greatest improvement I
have had from an upgrade. So, I ordered them, even upgraded them to RSC
AIR 1. When I installed the brand new cables (desparately in need of
break in) I actually, for a moment, thought they sounded even better
than the broken in ones, though I know the sound is inferior as I need
much more break in time.
The expectation was high; the psychological effect positive and for one
brief moment, thought they sounded great.
Hald way through break in, the other cables still blow these away. I
can't wait til next week.
Thank you for the article. It will make the rounds.
Dennis
Lou
thinks everything sounds alike, so that it would be pretty difficult for
folks to discount it.
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jXbsb.126591$9E1.623530@attbi_s52...
Nousaine
>I'd like to. More so if it were supervised by someone who everyone knows
>thinks everything sounds alike, so that it would be pretty difficult for
>folks to discount it.
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>
>Lou
I'm guessing that you're searching here. This experimemt was conducted single
and double blind over 2 days in the reference system of the subject who had
previously claimed to have easily produced significantly reliable results in
blind tests in that system.
This is not the only time I conducted this experiment with audiophiles. On
another occasion I had a subject who discounted his failure to distinguish his
Sumo Andromeda amplifier from a B&K fully mod-capped amplifier and a garden
variety Parasound at an audio club meeting as "not being familiar with the
system".
So I set the comparative system up in his listening room with the Parasound and
his Sumo and left him to 'warm-up' for 5 weeks. After this; he reported that
the differeces were plainly audible to him with the test set-up in place.
Yet he was unable to reliably identify his own amplifier in his own system once
he had NO way in advance to know which amplifier was actually driving his
speakers.
The ideas that proctors can "cow" subjects in these situations is just as silly
as saying that sales presentation techniques in audio salons don't have
underlying motives.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Ok, so what does it mean when a technician who has been taught that a cap is
>a cap, a resistor is a resistor, and a cable is a cable, hears differences
>when he really believes that everyone taking about how great this or that
>cap/resistor/coil/cable is full of dung? That has been my experience. My
>expectations were that none of it would matter, but one by one I was proven
>wrong, and I was invested in being right, thus wanted anything BUT to be
>wrong!!!
Can we be clear on this? Did you hear these 'differences' under DBT
conditions, or is this simply a claim based on sighted listening?
> I think a LOT of the DBT's are done by people who are well
>intended, but how use gear with bad synergy and low resolution.
A very tired old claim, refuted on many occasions.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Bruce Abrams
news:Zo9sb.173660$Fm2.152148@attbi_s04...
> Ok, so what does it mean when a technician who has been taught that=
a cap
is
> a cap, a resistor is a resistor, and a cable is a cable, hears diff=
erences
> when he really believes that everyone taking about how great this o=
r that
> cap/resistor/coil/cable is full of dung? That has been my experienc=
e. My
> expectations were that none of it would matter, but one by one I wa=
s
proven
> wrong, and I was invested in being right, thus wanted anything BUT =
to be
> wrong!!!
Expectation bias really has very little to what your conscious expect=
ations
are. This is well understood in all other areas of consumer product =
and
pharmaceutical testing, where studies are randomized and conducted on=
a
double blind basis such that neither the testor nor the test administ=
rator
know which they are receiving. The bias that was created on your par=
t
(regardless of your technician's skepticism), was created by the know=
ledge
that you changed something. Whether you consciously thought such a c=
hange
would affect the sound is secondary to the fact that you knew a chang=
e was
being made.
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Bruce Abrams
news:fBesb.126581$275.368270@attbi_s53...
> Absolutely excellent.
> I had made a comment to a fellow audiophile just the other day at how
> powerful the power of suggestion is.
>
> Case in point: I recently upgraded speaker cables from $79 run of the
> mill (okay, manufactured and recommended by my speaker manufacturer). I
> had problems with them (oscillation, due to shortening & termination as
> I have a new sound room), and demo'ed substantially better cables (Tara
> Labs RSC AIR 2, approx. $950--already broken in as they are demo's) and
> the improvement knocked my sox off. The single greatest improvement I
> have had from an upgrade. So, I ordered them, even upgraded them to RSC
> AIR 1. When I installed the brand new cables (desparately in need of
> break in) I actually, for a moment, thought they sounded even better
> than the broken in ones, though I know the sound is inferior as I need
> much more break in time.
>
> The expectation was high; the psychological effect positive and for one
> brief moment, thought they sounded great.
>
> Hald way through break in, the other cables still blow these away. I
> can't wait til next week.
It's interesting that on one hand you point out "how powerful the power of
suggestion is", while on the other you are eagerly to hear the expected
improvement in the sound of your new cables once they have been broken in.
Can you explain what leads you to the conclusion that the sound of your
cables will change after a period of time?
*snip*
Lou
You are wrong. See, you have been refuted! As I said, if I get to run the
tests, and I get to have whom so ever I want do the listening, then I'll
believe this, till then... You know it is my understanding that Lynn used to
use a little trick, they would tell their dealers that if they suggested
that the customer could not keep time with the music, that the tempo was
off, and that they should therefore buy a Lynn. Then the dealer would tap
his toe, snap his fingers, or what ever erratically and convince MANY that
it was the gear, and would ask if they could keep time. Well, with that
visual, nearly no one could. This little trick was tried on me, but I
figured out what was going on, I still could not keep time because of the
visual, but I knew what the game was.
I do not fool easily, and no, it was not a DBT, though I have to say that I
did often loose track of what the preamp was set on, but it mattered not,
even when I thought I may have been wrong about CDP X, I discovered that I
was on CDP A after all, and that I had been right... So, no, it was not DBT,
but you do not need a DBT for that which is obvious, like the difference
between a Coke can and a Pepsi can close up...
If a difference is subtle, like the soda pop cans at 250 yards, then you may
need a DBT, but when they jump out at you, I really do not believe you need
a DBT. Black Gate caps, AuriCaps, RTX Multicaps, et. al., in the right
position in the signal path can have that sort of impact.
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bp2t5...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Lou
with no effect! Often it is the ONLY way to check components short of having
test gear set up especially to test a specific card, so I really do not have
the expectation that a change is the same as an improvement, as often as not
it will change nothing! Swapping a good part for a good part is a waste of
time. That would be my mind-set! I did it to prove to myself how full of
$77# someone was, not because I really believed it. Every time you solder a
board you are rolling the dice, because it is pretty easy to damage the
board, so I do not like to swap parts, and I never did expect a change in
capacitors to change the sound.
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Bruce Abrams" <bru...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:bp2vh...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo
news:crksb.129422$9E1.653877@attbi_s52...
> "Lou" newsacc...@yahoo.com
>
> >I'd like to. More so if it were supervised by someone who everyone knows
> >thinks everything sounds alike, so that it would be pretty difficult for
> >folks to discount it.
> >
> >--
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Lou
>
single
> and double blind over 2 days in the reference system of the subject who
had
> previously claimed to have easily produced significantly reliable results
in
> blind tests in that system.
>
> >"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:jXbsb.126591$9E1.623530@attbi_s52...
> >> Lou <newsacc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >cap is
> >> > a cap, a resistor is a resistor, and a cable is a cable, hears
> >> > when he really believes that everyone taking about how great this or
> >that
> >> > cap/resistor/coil/cable is full of dung? That has been my experience.
My
> >> > expectations were that none of it would matter, but one by one I was
> >proven
> >> > wrong, and I was invested in being right, thus wanted anything BUT to
be
> >> > wrong!!! I think a LOT of the DBT's are done by people who are well
> >> > intended, but how use gear with bad synergy and low resolution.
> >>
> >> understand what is meant by perceptual bias, and who believe,
> >> for example, that it always has to be conscious.
> >>
> >> If you think 'synergy' and 'resolution' are the main culprits
> >> in negative DBT results, why don't you run a DBT of your own,
> >> using synergistic and high-resolution components, and tell
> >> us if the results differ from, say, the one run on
> >> audiophiles salesman Steve Zipser using his choice of
> >> high-end system.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -S.
>
> This is not the only time I conducted this experiment with audiophiles. On
> another occasion I had a subject who discounted his failure to distinguish
his
> Sumo Andromeda amplifier from a B&K fully mod-capped amplifier and a
garden
> variety Parasound at an audio club meeting as "not being familiar with the
> system".
>
> So I set the comparative system up in his listening room with the
Parasound and
> his Sumo and left him to 'warm-up' for 5 weeks. After this; he reported
that
>
> Yet he was unable to reliably identify his own amplifier in his own system
once
> he had NO way in advance to know which amplifier was actually driving his
> speakers.
>
> The ideas that proctors can "cow" subjects in these situations is just as
silly
> as saying that sales presentation techniques in audio salons don't have
> underlying motives.
>
You continue to ignore the fact that comparative blind testing has never had
a verification stage when it comes to this kind of thing....you just assume
that the test situation does not interfere with the perception. You folks
who believe this is the ultimate test have *never* provided a verifying
test, only an assumption based on the fact that such testing is widely used
in scientific fields and for listening for known artifacts, so it must apply
to mere open-ended listening as well. You ignore the lack of verifying
test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
emotional context, and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing is a
more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
Stewart Pinkerton
>"> A very tired old claim, refuted on many occasions."
>
>You are wrong. See, you have been refuted! As I said, if I get to run the
>tests, and I get to have whom so ever I want do the listening, then I'll
>believe this, till then... You know it is my understanding that Lynn used to
>use a little trick, they would tell their dealers that if they suggested
>that the customer could not keep time with the music, that the tempo was
>off, and that they should therefore buy a Lynn. Then the dealer would tap
>his toe, snap his fingers, or what ever erratically and convince MANY that
>it was the gear, and would ask if they could keep time. Well, with that
>visual, nearly no one could. This little trick was tried on me, but I
>figured out what was going on, I still could not keep time because of the
>visual, but I knew what the game was.
Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn is a crook, this is well known, but does not
have relevance to sighted bias per se.
>I do not fool easily, and no, it was not a DBT, though I have to say that I
>did often loose track of what the preamp was set on, but it mattered not,
>even when I thought I may have been wrong about CDP X, I discovered that I
>was on CDP A after all, and that I had been right... So, no, it was not DBT,
>but you do not need a DBT for that which is obvious, like the difference
>between a Coke can and a Pepsi can close up...
You do need a DBT to check whether it's as 'obvious' as you think it
is. When common sense tells you that there should be no audible
difference, but you hear one anyway, then a DBT is called for,
regardless of how 'obvious' you *think* the difference is. We've had
dealers on this newsgroup claiming 'night and day', and 'pretty
amazing' differences between amps and cables that, under DBT
conditions, they could not distinguish.
>If a difference is subtle, like the soda pop cans at 250 yards, then you may
>need a DBT, but when they jump out at you, I really do not believe you need
>a DBT. Black Gate caps, AuriCaps, RTX Multicaps, et. al., in the right
>position in the signal path can have that sort of impact.
Basically, this is rubbish. I am an electronics design engineer, and I
have been in the same position as you are regarding such 'night and
day' changes, about ten years ago. When you get caught out hearing a
difference when actually you hadn't made the change, then you suddenly
realise that something screwy is going on, and you apply proper
controls. Once you do this, all the snake oil evaporates.........
I know where you're coming from, I and most of the other
'objectivists' here have been down the same road, and you're just not
going to believe it until you've tried it for yourself. Sorry, but
'magic' resistors, capacitors, cables etc simply do *not* make audible
changes.
Harry Lavo
And that's why virtually every high end manufacturer uses them today, even
to some degree the lower end of the higher end. IMHO, the more neutral
quality of modern capacitors and low-noise resistors seem to be the main
change between modern and vintage tube amps (push-pull), for example, and
the modern are much more transparent. It is also why there is such a
thriving upgrade market, with passive component substitution the main area
of improvement.
Steven Sullivan
> garden
> > variety Parasound at an audio club meeting as "not being familiar with the
> > system".
> >
> > So I set the comparative system up in his listening room with the
> Parasound and
> > his Sumo and left him to 'warm-up' for 5 weeks. After this; he reported
> that
> > the differences were plainly audible to him with the test set-up in place.
> >
> > Yet he was unable to reliably identify his own amplifier in his own system
> once
> > he had NO way in advance to know which amplifier was actually driving his
> > speakers.
> >
> > The ideas that proctors can "cow" subjects in these situations is just as
> silly
> > as saying that sales presentation techniques in audio salons don't have
> > underlying motives.
> >
> You continue to ignore the fact that comparative blind testing has never had
> a verification stage when it comes to this kind of thing....you just assume
> that the test situation does not interfere with the perception. You folks
> who believe this is the ultimate test have *never* provided a verifying
> test, only an assumption based on the fact that such testing is widely used
> in scientific fields and for listening for known artifacts, so it must apply
> to mere open-ended listening as well.
DBT is used in audio component evaluation as well, e.g., in the work
of Floyd Toole and Sean Olive.
> You ignore the lack of verifying
> test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
> ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
> emotional context,
The latter is approriate to the discussion of emotional response to *music*,
but not to determining whehter music played over two components *really sounds
different due to the components*.
> and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
> Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing is a
> more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
I've seen you cling to this before, certainly, as a last bulwark against
the idea that *some stuff really does sound the same*.
THe thing is, 'sighted' comparisons routinely reported in the press and by
audiophiles here aren't necessarily 'relaxed' OR
'protomonadic' either. Which ones are, in your opinion?
What are the conditions *you* would accept for a DBT?
Because the test of any relentless 'critique' of things like DBTs
is, what *would* establish 'no difference' for the critic?
If there *is no* condition under which the critic is willing to acceded
that two different DUTs do sound the same, then it's not worth arguing.
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Harry Lavo
They were not doing open ended evaluation of components. They trained
panels to listen for certain defined traits, and then evaluated components
for that know trait. This is similar to training to hear "artifacts"...they
end result is defined and trainable, as has been pointed out here several
times by several posters. That is different than open ended listening.
Without verification, the "null" results reached in much dbt'ng versus
suspected differences under sighted conditions may truly reflect no
difference (attributed to "sighted bias"). But it can also indicate that
the test is not a good one for purposes of overall component evaluation
playing music...and the probability of this being the case is unknown since
no verification testing has been done (or at least published, to the best of
my knowledge - again, of open ended component testing). Certainly, an
enormous number of people have tried in this and other discussion groups
over the years to make the case that component differences are too great and
too universally described to be wished away simply as "sighted bias". The
test proponents claim it has to be so, because the differences dissapear
under dbt conditions. The logic is faulty. The argument is best understood
as part of a belief system, rather than a strictly logical argument.
>
>
> > You ignore the lack of verifying
> > test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
> > ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
> > emotional context,
>
> The latter is approriate to the discussion of emotional response to
*music*,
> but not to determining whehter music played over two components *really
sounds
> different due to the components*.
>
Not so, components differ in their ability to reach the ear/brain with a
sound that elicits the same emotional reaction as live music. As Oohashi,
et al's testing showed, it takes at an estimated 20 seconds for these
emotional reactions to set in and it takes a relaxed, protomonadic state to
record the impact that this emotion creates in terms of an overall
evaluation (e.g., rating the "sound").
>
> > and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
> > Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing
is a
> > more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
>
> I've seen you cling to this before, certainly, as a last bulwark against
> the idea that *some stuff really does sound the same*.
>
> THe thing is, 'sighted' comparisons routinely reported in the press and by
> audiophiles here aren't necessarily 'relaxed' OR
> 'protomonadic' either. Which ones are, in your opinion?
> What are the conditions *you* would accept for a DBT?
>
I'd be very happy if all component testing were done under the blind
conditions created for the Oohashi et al tests. Blind, relaxed,
proto-monadic evaluation after listening to a complete excerpt that
represented an entire musical work.
> Because the test of any relentless 'critique' of things like DBTs
> is, what *would* establish 'no difference' for the critic?
>
> If there *is no* condition under which the critic is willing to acceded
> that two different DUTs do sound the same, then it's not worth arguing.
>
>
Sure, in addition to sighted and conventional dbt, set up a relaxed, blind,
protomondic test similar to Oohashi's to serve as a control. Then see if
the results upon statistical analysis support one of the other two tests
(sighted and conventional dbt) or not. Simple in theory. It simply
requires time, motivation, the proper test setting and equipment, careful
attention to detail, and a completely unbiased mind or consortium. And of
course the money to fund all that.
> "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
And a very strong belief that we are right and they are wrong.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Lou" <newsacc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bp3j4...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> If a difference is subtle, like the soda pop cans at 250 yards, then you may
>> need a DBT, but when they jump out at you, I really do not believe you need
>> a DBT. Black Gate caps, AuriCaps, RTX Multicaps, et. al., in the right
>> position in the signal path can have that sort of impact.
>And that's why virtually every high end manufacturer uses them today, even
>to some degree the lower end of the higher end.
Actually no, it's because the marketing guys (who can include some of
the wackier 'designers' such as Qvortrup) *insist* that such
components are used, otherwise the unit will not be regarded as 'high
end' by the ragazine reviewers. It's a circular argument. Such things
as ESR matter, snake oil doesn't.
> IMHO, the more neutral
>quality of modern capacitors and low-noise resistors seem to be the main
>change between modern and vintage tube amps (push-pull), for example, and
>the modern are much more transparent. It is also why there is such a
>thriving upgrade market, with passive component substitution the main area
>of improvement.
Absolute garbage! Aside from basics such as not using carbon
composition resistors and low-value electrolytics, which have obvious
electrical problems, no one has *ever* shown that 'high end'
capacitors and resistors make any *audible* difference whatever.
Please note that Lou, who is a proponent of such 'magic' components,
does not use controlled listening tests.
Lou
" I think a LOT of statements about DBTs are made by people who don't
understand what is meant by perceptual bias, and who believe, for example,
that it always has to be conscious."
Fine, not that it is applicable here, but I have no argument with it...
"If you think 'synergy' and 'resolution' are the main culprits in negative
DBT results, why don't you run a DBT of your own, using synergistic and
high-resolution components, and tell us if the results differ from, say, the
one run on audiophiles salesman Steve Zipser using his choice of high-end
system."
I am not sure I know of a good way to do a DBT. I could easily do a single
blind test I suppose, using very long speaker cables with the system in
another room. Mind you now that I am not saying that all claims are valad. I
cannot hear differences in speaker cables once you get into a decent cable,
I have not tried just 12 gage wire yet, but I cannot hear differences
between Goertz, Kimber, Monster, or AQ for example. I do hear differences in
IC's, and while many amps sound identical to me, some, like a PS 200CX, or a
Hafler DH-500, or a B&K 442, etc. w/o mods can be identified as inferior
sounding. The biggest differences are usually found in preamp mods and CDP
mods.
--
-S.
"This is not the only time I conducted this experiment with audiophiles.
On
another occasion I had a subject who discounted his failure to distinguish
his
Sumo Andromeda amplifier from a B&K fully mod-capped amplifier and a
garden
variety Parasound at an audio club meeting as "not being familiar with the
system"."
If he got to listen till he thought he could tell, then he is simply full of
dung. Amps can be imposible to distinguis if well designed, but poor
sounding ones can be spotted pretty quickly.
"So I set the comparative system up in his listening room with the
Parasound and
his Sumo and left him to 'warm-up' for 5 weeks. After this; he reported
that
the differences were plainly audible to him with the test set-up in place.
Yet he was unable to reliably identify his own amplifier in his own system
once
he had NO way in advance to know which amplifier was actually driving his
speakers."
Ok, I have a Threshold with about $1,500 in mods in it. I picked up an
Acoustat TNT 200 for $400.00, tossed in Fred caps, and no one I asked could
hear a difference between it and my Stasis amp, so I am not necessarily
shocked here. I am surprised that he was able to fool himself into believing
he could hear a difference when there was one. I guess I was unable to do so
with the Acoustat, even though I had a substantial time and money investment
in the Stasis...
"The ideas that proctors can "cow" subjects in these situations is just as
silly
as saying that sales presentation techniques in audio salons don't have
underlying motives."
If it is a DBT, then you they cannot trick them, but as I said, if the
system sucks, I might well not be able to tell a difference, and if there is
no difference I would not be able to tell a difference. I do not know the
Suma, nor the moded B&W, I know unmoded many B&K's need help...
B/R,
Lou
Harry Lavo
Tell that to the two guys who designed the Citation 11, 12, 14, and 15.
They spent weeks evaluating resistors and capacitors in circuit and judging
by ear to get the best sound they could. This was before such "tuning" was
widely known and accepted...and they probably would have been laughed at by
their fellow engineers. They just happened to produce equipment that was
head and shoulders above their peers at the time in terms of its
faithfulness to music.
I know this for a fact because I spent time with them...I was just coming
into H-K at the time they were leaving (courtesy of a boss who tore down the
sound evaluation room to turn it into an office for the Sales Manager, and
then went out and hired some NASA ee's who produced the excretable Citation
XVI and the rest of the late '70's H-K line.)
> Please note that Lou, who is a proponent of such 'magic' components,
> does not use controlled listening tests.
And until somebody does a verification test on dbt'ng of audio components
for overall open-ended "musicality", Lou's onion is just as good as yours.
Lou
am doing the mods, or anyone that uses my mods did it, you would be
completely unable to tell the difference between an F-44 Forte preamp and a
Code, even though the F-44 does have a cap in the feedback circuit, and the
Coda has no cap in the audio path... Same for my Stasis 2 amp and a moded
Acoustat TNT 200, and I am sure a Hafler with a Transnova circuit. Now if
you really crank them to their limits, I have 160,000uF in my power supply,
so the others may bottom out and clip, but other than that...
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bp6a0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Lou
the Dale's in the gold anodized cases, do sound WAY better than the sand
cast white junk resistors, and that by-passing PS and bias caps with RTX
MultiCaps quiets the DC down to a level where you will be astonished at the
improvement due to the low DA of styrene, I am not sure why the tin is such
an improvement over generic styrene, but it is. I also know that Black Gate
caps will pass signals better than a lot of caps out there. I would guess
that many caps made for switching power supplies may be as good, but I do
not know about them or their availability. If your system is transparent
enough, most things you say do not, or cannot, make a difference do. I also
know that LT1355's sound awesome as well. I want to try some LT1365's, with
the added current they may sound even better. I wish you lived near
Cincinnati, I have 2 Sony DVP-S9000ES's here, one with mods, one w/o. After
$112.30 in parts, the moded one sounds like live music because all the
grunge in the DC is gone, lowering the noise floor while the other is
fatiguing.
If you think I am wrong, buy an F-40/44 Forte preamp, get used to the sound,
then replace the crappy old elna bias caps with Black Gate caps, by-pass
them with .1uF RTX multicaps in place of the .47uF Wima's. Replace the .47
Wima in the feedback loop with a .33uF AuriCap by-passed with an RTX
MultiCap, w/o the RTX you'll have no bass, lush mids, but no bass. Replace
the elna PS caps with almost anything good, and by-pass with .1uF RTX caps.
You'll have gone from a really interesting preamp with a distinct sound of
it's own, which is very dark, to on of the most revealing, cleanest preamps
you have ever heard. I doubt if you could tell the difference between it and
a Spectral preamp in a DBT, it is that fast and clean. This does assume that
the rest of your system is at least decent.
You can get the same from a Coda Continuum Window, with way less work, but
the remote sucks. It has no caps in the audio path, but with an RTX and an
AuriCap in the F-44, you might not be able to tell the difference between
these 2 after I mod them. Mods work, and some caps are good, others suck,
same with resistors, coils, etc. I have done some pretty amazing crossover
mods too.
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bp5jj...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Steven Sullivan
> There is NO question that lots of gear can sound the same.
Really? One gets the impression from audiophile culture
that relatively few pieces of
gear sound the same, if you listen long enough and carefully enough
over a system with high enough resolution.
Harry Lavo
news:LKRtb.168877$275.518734@attbi_s53...
> And until somebody does a verification test on dbt'ng of audio components
> for overall open-ended "musicality", Lou's onion is just as good as yours.
>
Of course, if you prefer white onions instead of red, then you may not like
Lou's onion as much.
Opinion, of course. :-)
Steven Sullivan
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bp6a0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > of Floyd Toole and Sean Olive.
> >
> They were not doing open ended evaluation of components. They trained
> panels to listen for certain defined traits, and then evaluated components
> for that know trait. This is similar to training to hear "artifacts"...they
> end result is defined and trainable, as has been pointed out here several
> times by several posters. That is different than open ended listening.
> Without verification, the "null" results reached in much dbt'ng versus
> suspected differences under sighted conditions may truly reflect no
> difference (attributed to "sighted bias"). But it can also indicate that
> the test is not a good one for purposes of overall component evaluation
> playing music...and the probability of this being the case is unknown since
> no verification testing has been done (or at least published, to the best of
> my knowledge - again, of open ended component testing).
> Certainly, an
> enormous number of people have tried in this and other discussion groups
> over the years to make the case that component differences are too great and
> too universally described to be wished away simply as "sighted bias". The
> test proponents claim it has to be so, because the differences dissapear
> under dbt conditions. The logic is faulty. The argument is best understood
> as part of a belief system, rather than a strictly logical argument.
Of course, by that reductive argument, what we're simply seeing is *your* belief
system, here,
The existence of sighted bias is not in question for you, is it? If not,
then what makes you 'believe' the 'enormous number of people' you cite?
And what sort of verification would verify a negative DBT for you?
> > > You ignore the lack of verifying
> > > test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
> > > ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
> > > emotional context,
> >
> > The latter is approriate to the discussion of emotional response to
> *music*,
> > but not to determining whehter music played over two components *really
> sounds
> > different due to the components*.
> >
> Not so, components differ in their ability to reach the ear/brain with a
> sound that elicits the same emotional reaction as live music.
I realize that this is the standard for some people, but much of the music
I listen to isn't live, never was. It's studio-concocted. And a lot
of it packs an intense emotional wallop for me. Moreover,
intense emotional reactions can come from stuff played over quite
technically dire reproduction systems, as fans of old 78's can attest.
So I find this standard questionable at best, parochial at worst.
> As Oohashi,
> et al's testing showed, it takes at an estimated 20 seconds for these
> emotional reactions to set in and it takes a relaxed, protomonadic state to
> record the impact that this emotion creates in terms of an overall
> evaluation (e.g., rating the "sound")
Oohashi's work is interesting but a bit 'insular' -- there's nothing in the
way of replication by others that I can find, for the work you keep citing.
Other researching might approach these questions differently, with different paradigms.
You will note, however that even Oohashi, whose work can be a bit 'out there' (he
has a paper on a portable EKG unit he helped design for studying
possession trance states), acknowledges the *fundamental* need for bias controls
-- something 'relaxed' *sighted* , variably 'protomonadic' comparison, the
standard for the enormous numbers of audiophiles you cite, seem to ignore.
That's a gigantic flag on THOSE 'results',and not just erected by ONE researcher's
work, but by the work of dozens
if not hundreds, in the field of perceptual psychology, over the course of
decades.
So for you to elevate doubts about DBT results to the same plane as doubts
about sighted results, seems rather *partisan*.
> >
> > > and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
> > > Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing
> is a
> > > more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
> >
> > I've seen you cling to this before, certainly, as a last bulwark against
> > the idea that *some stuff really does sound the same*.
> >
> > THe thing is, 'sighted' comparisons routinely reported in the press and by
> > audiophiles here aren't necessarily 'relaxed' OR
> > 'protomonadic' either. Which ones are, in your opinion?
> > What are the conditions *you* would accept for a DBT?
> >
> I'd be very happy if all component testing were done under the blind
> conditions created for the Oohashi et al tests. Blind, relaxed,
> proto-monadic evaluation after listening to a complete excerpt that
> represented an entire musical work.
And so, what evidentiary status do you give claims of difference
that AREN'T derived in such fashion?
> > Because the test of any relentless 'critique' of things like DBTs
> > is, what *would* establish 'no difference' for the critic?
> >
> > If there *is no* condition under which the critic is willing to acceded
> > that two different DUTs do sound the same, then it's not worth arguing.
> >
> >
> Sure, in addition to sighted and conventional dbt, set up a relaxed, blind,
> protomondic test similar to Oohashi's to serve as a control. Then see if
> the results upon statistical analysis support one of the other two tests
> (sighted and conventional dbt) or not. Simple in theory. It simply
> requires time, motivation, the proper test setting and equipment, careful
> attention to detail, and a completely unbiased mind or consortium. And of
> course the money to fund all that.
Certainly DBTs have been done -- and produced negative results --
where the subject has been allowed to listen as long as they like to each selection.
And where the subject uses a familiar component as the 'standard', it would seem
there's no need for 'protomonadic' evaluation. SO how to explain results
like Zipser's?
> > "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> > -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
> And a very strong belief that we are right and they are wrong.
Neither side has a monopoly on THAT.
One side does have more science on its side, though.
--
-S.
Gary Rosen
> You continue to ignore the fact that comparative blind testing has never
had
> a verification stage when it comes to this kind of thing....you just
assume
> that the test situation does not interfere with the perception. You folks
> who believe this is the ultimate test have *never* provided a verifying
> test, only an assumption based on the fact that such testing is widely
used
> in scientific fields and for listening for known artifacts, so it must
apply
> to mere open-ended listening as well. You ignore the lack of verifying
> test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
> ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
> emotional context, and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
> Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing is
a
> more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
Every time someone claims a component (amp, speaker, cable, whatever)
sounds better or different than another they are making a test or
comparison. Why are you criticizing only blind tests for this alleged
failure to be "relaxed proto-monadic"? There is no reason why they
can't be.
- Gary Rosen
Nousaine
Harry completely ignores the fact that the high-end contingent has never been
able to show that with nothing more than rudimentary listening bias controls
implemented that "audiophiles" have NEVER been able to demonstrate an ability
to "hear" amps and cables. Even in situations where the components selected
were selected to help "promote" differences.
>
>They were not doing open ended evaluation of components. They trained
>panels to listen for certain defined traits, and then evaluated components
>for that know trait. This is similar to training to hear "artifacts"...they
>end result is defined and trainable, as has been pointed out here several
>times by several posters. That is different than open ended listening.
>
>Without verification, the "null" results reached in much dbt'ng versus
>suspected differences under sighted conditions may truly reflect no
>difference (attributed to "sighted bias"). But it can also indicate that
>the test is not a good one for purposes of overall component evaluation
>playing music...and the probability of this being the case is unknown since
>no verification testing has been done (or at least published, to the best of
>my knowledge - again, of open ended component testing). Certainly, an
>enormous number of people have tried in this and other discussion groups
>over the years to make the case that component differences are too great and
>too universally described to be wished away simply as "sighted bias". The
>test proponents claim it has to be so, because the differences dissapear
>under dbt conditions. The logic is faulty. The argument is best understood
>as part of a belief system, rather than a strictly logical argument.
I'd guess that the inabilty to demononstrate audible difference under
bias-conntrolled conditions is more of a "belief system" than an "argument" of
any kind. Actually the promotion of amp/bit/cable difference is based 100% on a
belief system; because non of it has EVER been demonstrated under ANY
circumstance when even modest listener bias control has been implemented.
>> > You ignore the lack of verifying
>> > test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
>> > ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
>> > emotional context,
>>
>> The latter is approriate to the discussion of emotional response to
>*music*,
>> but not to determining whehter music played over two components *really
>sounds
>> different due to the components*.
>>
>
>Not so, components differ in their ability to reach the ear/brain with a
>sound that elicits the same emotional reaction as live music. As Oohashi,
>et al's testing showed, it takes at an estimated 20 seconds for these
>emotional reactions to set in and it takes a relaxed, protomonadic state to
>record the impact that this emotion creates in terms of an overall
>evaluation (e.g., rating the "sound").
So why didn't my subject continue to "hear" the obvious differences between his
SUMO and the Parasound after 5 weeks on "honing-in" on the differences in his
personal reference system; when nothing more than his knowledge of which amp
was playing was not known before he had to make a decision?
How about the Zipser affair? Why, in his personal system, in his own home, was
he unable to easily identify his OWN amplifer from a much less expensive
interloper under any set of reasonable bias-controlled conditions?
No it just requires that those of you who make this argument will put your ears
on the line. When, where?
>
>> "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
>> -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
>
>And a very strong belief that we are right and they are wrong.
Who's right? "I hear differences in wires and ampliifers." Or "I can't any
bias-controlled conditions under which anybody has been able to demonstrate an
ability to hear these differences."
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bp8d0...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Please note that Lou, who is a proponent of such 'magic' components,
>> does not use controlled listening tests.
>
>And until somebody does a verification test on dbt'ng of audio components
>for overall open-ended "musicality", Lou's onion is just as good as yours.
No Harry, first you have to show *difference*. Without demonstrating
real difference, there can be no change in 'musicality'.
Harry Lavo
news:bpb17...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Because as a matter of fact the tests cited here (showing a "null"
difference, and by mistaken inference, therefore the conclusion that their
is "no" difference) have not been run that way.
And I am not criticizing blind tests. The Oohashi et al test was a blind
test. I know the value of blind tests in general. I have used them in my
work in the past.
I am criticizing comparative tests, especially ones that use short time
intervals or short snippets of music, for the purposes of open ended
component evaluation, only. I believe the emotional response stirred in
reaction to music makes the left brain/right brain consideration an
important factor in getting a valid response...and I believe comparative
testing as described tends to throw one into an evaluative "left brain
primarily" mode of evaluation. Especially, if the test is taken to "prove"
something, which in and of itself adds stress that tends to block the
relaxed state necessary to get an accurate "emotional" response to the
music.
As has been said here before, we are not evaluating "sound" (as in artifact)
here. We are evaluating a component's ability to pass/generate sound such
that it fully delivers the "emotional" response of the live performance.
And there seem to be factors in the way various components deliver in the
real world under dynamic conditions that are not captured by conventional
measurements and do not necessarily measure as static differences in
frequency response or volume. Thus a subjective, gestalt response
incorporating emotional response is still the ultimate guide. Any test that
interferes with the ability to get that response is therefore a suspect test
for the purposes of evaluating components on an open-ended basis. In my
opinion, abx almost certainly creates that interference, and even straight
a-b blind tests probably do to some degree. Especially, if done "under
challenge".
josko
> I wish you lived near
> Cincinnati, I have 2 Sony DVP-S9000ES's here, one with mods, one w/o.
After
> $112.30 in parts, the moded one sounds like live music because all the
> grunge in the DC is gone, lowering the noise floor while the other is
> fatiguing.
So, why do you think that Sony did not produce DVP-S9000ES with those
mods already in place? Are people who buy Sony not sophisticated enough
to hear and to appreacite these obvious differences in sound? After
all, with its procurement and production economies, Sony would be able
to do these mods for a fraction of an enthusiast's cost.
Lou
dielectric absorption matter too, so now Mr. Van Alstine is using caps
chosen for their sound... Likely as recently as 2 years ago he would have
agreed completely with you on this, but no more. He does agree on cables as
far as I know, but not caps. While I may not use what YOU define as
"controlled" listening tests, as only DBTs are controlled by your
definition, that does not mean I have no controls what ever, they are merely
less than perfect. Odd that these less than perfect methods have me agreeing
with you about good amps and speaker cables sounding alike....
--
Best Regards,
Lou
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bp8d0...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Nousaine
>"Gary Rosen" <garym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:bpb17...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:bp5jf...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> > You continue to ignore the fact that comparative blind testing has never
>> had
>> > a verification stage when it comes to this kind of thing....you just
>> assume
>> > that the test situation does not interfere with the perception.
You've shown no verifying test that open un-bias controlled conditions do not
interfere with SOUND perception in a way may completely be at odds with the
sound actually being reproduced.
And you've introduced no mechanism that would suggest that withholding the
identitiy of the sound reproduction equipment (indeed with ABX the refererence
sound is ALWAYS available) at the point of decision making is an interference
factor OTHER than excluding NON-sonic factors.
You
>folks
>> > who believe this is the ultimate test have *never* provided a verifying
>> > test, only an assumption based on the fact that such testing is widely
>> used
>> > in scientific fields and for listening for known artifacts, so it must
>> apply
>> > to mere open-ended listening as well. You ignore the lack of verifying
>> > test, you ignore the discussion of what differentiates *sound* from the
>> > ear/brain interaction that interprets music in both its cerebral and its
>> > emotional context, and you ignore the *caution* flags thrown up by the
>> > Oohashi et. al. test that suggested that relaxed proto-monadic testing
>is
>> a
>> > more sensitive indicator when it comes to musical evaluation.
But we're NOT evaluating the "music" or the performance of same. That is more
properly done in a different mode. What I want to evaluate is whether this
component IMPROVES the reproduction of sound (music is simply one of the
sources of interest to me.)
>> Every time someone claims a component (amp, speaker, cable, whatever)
>> sounds better or different than another they are making a test or
>> comparison. Why are you criticizing only blind tests for this alleged
>> failure to be "relaxed proto-monadic"? There is no reason why they
>> can't be.
>>
>> - Gary Rosen
>
>Because as a matter of fact the tests cited here (showing a "null"
>difference, and by mistaken inference, therefore the conclusion that their
>is "no" difference) have not been run that way.
Not true. I've conducted bias controlled experiments with no time limits on
either program length or decision time. Indeed I once conducted an experiment
where subjects took as long as 16 weeks to complete ONE trial.
>
>And I am not criticizing blind tests. The Oohashi et al test was a blind
>test. I know the value of blind tests in general. I have used them in my
>work in the past.
>
>I am criticizing comparative tests, especially ones that use short time
>intervals or short snippets of music, for the purposes of open ended
>component evaluation, only. I believe the emotional response stirred in
>reaction to music makes the left brain/right brain consideration an
>important factor in getting a valid response...and I believe comparative
>testing as described tends to throw one into an evaluative "left brain
>primarily" mode of evaluation.
Actually I often find that 'emotional attachment' to program content is a
detriment to sonic evaluation. For example I once was unable to use Joan Baez'
"Diamonds and Rust" for evaluation because my emotional attachment to that
performance was so strong that it sounded good and I was near-tears on
EVERYTHING it was played through.
15 years and several THOUSAND exposures to a 120-second clip later it's a very
good evaluative piece highlighting bass evenness, stage width, depth and
ambiance distribution and natural timbre of female voice.
Especially, if the test is taken to "prove"
>something, which in and of itself adds stress that tends to block the
>relaxed state necessary to get an accurate "emotional" response to the
>music.
Actually human physical and sensory performance is greatly improved under
challenge and stress. In life and death situations humans senses are their
maximal capability. The only time when humans "freeze" is when they have NO
capability to perform under challenge.
For example, the braggart freezes when asked to demonstrate an ability they
boasted they hold. It may be true that Steve Zipser and Greg Singh froze when
actually faced with a situation they had claimed to have easily passed before
but ONLY because they were faced with proving it.
It's easy to say you have the ability to run a 3-minute mile. But when someone
drags out the stop watch and brings you to a 1/4 mile measured track, of
course. the stress increases. But it has NOTHING to do with an interference
factor due to the 'test' situation.
I once heard a non-controlled listening advocate say "my ability to hear these
subtle differences disappears when someone holds a gun to my head and says
'prove it.' "
My reaction was that "IF those differences actually existed; then a gun to my
head would definitely bring ALL my acuity to it's full capacity." And "if those
differences were not acoustically true, then sure I'd freeze."
We tend to forget that human sensory capacity IMPROVES under stress. Especially
if that stress is strong enough to supply a shot of adrenaline.
The 'kick back and relax' method actually allows internal imagination to
supplant and psychologically intensify true physical sensitivity.
For example a couple glasses of Smith & Hook 1999 cabernet definitely aided my
ability to both suspend disbelief and more fully enjoy Ruthie Foster performing
"Hole In My Pocket" on Austin City Limits a few weeks ago. But it had NOTHING
to do with the actual sound being reproduced, even if it enhanced the personal
experience.
>As has been said here before, we are not evaluating "sound" (as in artifact)
>here. We are evaluating a component's ability to pass/generate sound such
>that it fully delivers the "emotional" response of the live performance.
That's fine for you I suppose. In my view I'm more interested, in evaluation
mode, to know whether the component improves the naturalness of the timbre,
spatiality and dynamics of the sound being transported through the system. The
"emotional" response comes after the sound has been transported through the
system to my ears when the program has emotional content.
I fully appreciate nature sounds as well. The realistic sound of loons on a
lake and water lapping at the shore is fully as emotional to me as any
Bluegrass music.
Even hyper-realistic sound can be psychologically satisfying. For example there
is a scene in "Clear & Present Danger" where a jet plane flys out of the screen
right through a centered listener and out the back of my listening room.
I spoke at length to the guy that mixed and edited that scene. To hear a
rendition of that scene on a system that allows that "effect" to work with
perfection is, to me. a wonder. That's the intended experience; but the
original sound field never existed and is a physical impossibility.
Emotional content, beyond that intended in production, is, well, simply a
wonder that someone could mix a segment that had the intent and that I could
hear it in my listening room.
Of course, I haven't simply relied on MY perception of that sound; although
that would be normally enough for any given system owner. I've asked several
other listeners to fill out score sheets tracking their perception of the
movement of sounds and have a reasonable verification that this is how people
perceive the movement of sounds in this system and over a fairly small group of
seats.
>And there seem to be factors in the way various components deliver in the
>real world under dynamic conditions that are not captured by conventional
>measurements and do not necessarily measure as static differences in
>frequency response or volume.
That's not what Floyd Toole would say.
Thus a subjective, gestalt response
>incorporating emotional response is still the ultimate guide.
OK; but you've not shown that your "open" method has any resilience to
personal, societal, retail or common human bias mechanisms.
I've checked this with often nothing more than a cloth placed over speaker and
amplifier terminals and so far, to this date, not a single subject has ever
shown an ability to acoustcially "hear" amp/cable differences that folks like
you call common and easy-to-hear
As I've said before I'm more than willing to allow you a chance to prove your
case in a 'split the cost' experiment.
Any test that
>interferes with the ability to get that response is therefore a suspect test
>for the purposes of evaluating components on an open-ended basis.
In other words, any experiment that doesn't return the results you want is
suspect even if it passes all other experimental checks.
In my
>opinion, abx almost certainly creates that interference, and even straight
>a-b blind tests probably do to some degree. Especially, if done "under
>challenge".
What does 'challenge' have to do with anything? EVERY public claim is subject
to investigation. You've had no trouble challenging mine. Let me put the ball
back in your court.
Under what conditions can you verify your claims about amp and/or wire sound?
Harry Lavo
Let's be clear here.
I am not defending sighted tests against blind tests, except (and its a big
exception) that you above all others here keep insisting that there are no
differences when you do a null test, and the fact that people hear
differences using other testing is just an illusion...in the case of sighted
tests, due to sighted bias (no matter what the results, whether they make
sense as possibilities or not.). Yet you make this assertion using a test
that may itself be faulty and without ever doing a control test to test the
test. I and others have acknowledged that sighted testing *may* at times
have false positives. You have never acknowledged that your type of testing
*may* have false negatives. The Oohashi et al group, on the other hand,
designed a test specifically to closely approximate a relaxed home listening
environment, although blind. And they found statistically significant
differences in their test that they claim did not show up under conventional
quick switch, short segment testing. Both tests were blind.
This is the closest thing to a control to your type of blind testing
evaluation I've seen, and based on this result, one can make the case that
everything we subjectivists have claimed against your form of testing may be
right.
I'm certainly not going to claim that the case is proven....what I am saying
is if you are going to continue to assert dogmatically that your tests
"prove" that their is no difference in most equipment (with disclaimer blah
blah blah), then it is at best false logic and at worse a religious "belief"
masquerading as logic.
What I proposed was very simple...if a control test is done and supports
your form of testing I will be happy to support it...if it supports sighted
listening you should be happy to change your POV. If you really want to
know the truth, do a test set up similar to Oohashi et al as well as dbt and
sighted tests, and see which test the control (Oohashi-type) test mimics.
That will separate the advantages of "blind and comparative" from the
advantages of "relaxed and evaluative". That is the missing control test.
As for emotional content, Tom, you (and some others as well) have a very
strange view of this. I (and others here who have made the same argument)
are talking about a physiological function of the brain's pleasure center,
proven by science to be an important part of reaction to music. Not a "wow"
effect from airplanes blowing through. As in the difference as to why a toe
starts tapping through one amplifier and not another with the same music; or
why that favorite song on one cd player brings back all those happy memories
with the first love, and on another it just kind of leaves you cold because
it sounds a bit sterile and mechanical. Those kind of reactions. If you
test two amplifiers, and using one you have an uncontrollable urge to duck
the airplane, and using another you just hear it coming and going as an
elegantly reproduced sound....that is the difference we are trying to get
at. And it is not in the published specs. Or even as far as I can tell
hear in the extended specs that define the "competent amp". But I suspect
it is a phenomenon known to most audiophiles. And it is why we do not
totally buy your belief that dbt'ng has proven most differences are
imagination.
Harry Lavo
news:gwcub.228851$Fm2.229167@attbi_s04...
Sony uses only middle-grade capacitors in their equipment which gives them
their "house sound", a slightly lean and sometimes "plasticy" mid-bass.
Sony's entire ES line can be upgraded from very good to superb with
capacitor upgrades and their is a growing cottage industry doing just that.
It seems to be a SONY engineering "belief system" that prevents their use of
better caps.
chung
> Well, one of your oldest ally in your arguments has learned that things like
> dielectric absorption matter too, so now Mr. Van Alstine is using caps
> chosen for their sound... Likely as recently as 2 years ago he would have
> agreed completely with you on this, but no more. He does agree on cables as
> far as I know, but not caps. While I may not use what YOU define as
> "controlled" listening tests, as only DBTs are controlled by your
> definition, that does not mean I have no controls what ever, they are merely
> less than perfect. Odd that these less than perfect methods have me agreeing
> with you about good amps and speaker cables sounding alike....
>
> --
Dielectric absortion of caps is a well known phenomenon since the '60's.
It exhibits itslef as a memory effect when a certain type of capacitor
is charged and then discharged as used in sample-and-hold circuits or
integrators; the capacitor still has a residual charge left after the
leads have been shorted out. And you don't need expensive caps to get
low dielectric absorption.
As far as we know, dielectric absorption has no effect on audio circuits
like the ones you find in an amplifier, since those caps, whether it is
for coupling or for bypassing, do not have its charge (or DC voltage)
change substantially during operation. This is borne out by extensive
distortion measurements.
For audio amp circuits or cross-overs, Stewart is correct: only
parasitic L and ESR of a cap, and of course the ratings, are important
in the choice of capacitor. A polarized cap that is not properly biased
can also result in distortion at low frequencies.
Again, all this is not something recently discovered. There is nothing
new about capacitors in at least 20 years now, with the possible
exception of newer packaging techniques. Polystyrene caps are
still very good caps now and back then, because of their superior
stability, but not because of its "sound".
When you do your mods, check the frequency response and distortion to
measure whether there is any improvement. If there is, you should be
able to measure it. When you read about mods of caps and resistors,
seldom would you see any before/after measurements showing the effects
of the mods. My educated guess is that the improvement in sound is
really an illusion.
Choosing a cap in an audio circuit is elementary for any competent
circuit designer. To think that you can out-design the original
designers by changing to "better grade" caps, without measurements to
back those up, is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately, substituting
caps and resistors only give subtle changes in the sound at best, and
screw up the circuits at worst, and the people who do those mods are the
ones who really need controlled-bias testing, and they seldom do that.
Steven Sullivan
> "josko" <jjbr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gwcub.228851$Fm2.229167@attbi_s04...
> > "Lou" <newsacc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:FkStb.216711$Tr4.629569@attbi_s03...
> > > I wish you lived near
> > > Cincinnati, I have 2 Sony DVP-S9000ES's here, one with mods, one w/o.
> > After
> > > $112.30 in parts, the moded one sounds like live music because all the
> > > grunge in the DC is gone, lowering the noise floor while the other is
> > > fatiguing.
> >
> > So, why do you think that Sony did not produce DVP-S9000ES with those
> > mods already in place? Are people who buy Sony not sophisticated enough
> > to hear and to appreacite these obvious differences in sound? After
> > all, with its procurement and production economies, Sony would be able
> > to do these mods for a fraction of an enthusiast's cost.
> Sony uses only middle-grade capacitors in their equipment which gives them
> their "house sound", a slightly lean and sometimes "plasticy" mid-bass.
Sounds like something readily measurable. If this is true then
Sony products should display a characteristic midbass profile in
frequency response curves. Do they? Are Sony amps and receivers
notably less 'flat' in the midbass than other brands?
I have at hand most of the last two years worth of Sound & Vision
magazine. They reviewed a Sony A/V receiver (STR-DA4ES0 in Jan 2003.
Presusing the review, I see no mention of any midbass leanness or
'plasticky' sound. The reviewer, Daniel Kumin, writes of
'clean, well-defined sound effects, dialogue, and music' during
HT use, and describes its extensive equalization pallette options.
He reports 'no sonic warts even with all channels playing
dynamic [DVD-A] material at high levels." And 'able to drive
my suite of moderate-sensitivity speakers to real-world levels
and then some even without the assistance of a powered subwoofer."
The majority of the review goes on to describe features of the device,
rather than sound.
THe lab report indicates a stereo performance frequency response (using
digital inputss) of 10 Hz-20 kHz, +0, -1.5 dB (-6 dB at 35 kHz when fed a
96/24 signal). The only bass-related notes in the
accompanying text to the lab report, are that 'the sole anomaly
I encountered was that the slopes of the high-pass and subwoofer low-pass
crossovers measured 6 and 12 dB per
octave, respectively, instead of the de fact standards of 12 and 24 dB
per octave'.
Nothing about midbass leanness or plasticness that I could find.
Looking at reviews of their DVD players, I find two recies of DVD/SACD
players int he last two years.
The DVP-NS755V is reviewed in Dec 2002 by Dave Ranada in a
'roundup' of three high-rez players.
The multichannel audio frequency response is listed as 20Hz to 50.84 kHz, but no
variation figures are given (though they are for the other two).
The only notes about the bass are that the Sony has bass management,
whereas the other two do not, and that its BM shifts crossover
frequcy from 80 Hz to 115 Hz when going from DVD-V to SACD; slope
also changes (such inconsistencies are common among hi-rez players,
I've noted).
The DVP-CX985V 400-disc DVD/SACD changer is reviewed in Sept 2003
by Al Griffin, who reports that teh player's multichannel SACD
playback has an 'a most
cinematic' presentation, with the changer conveying the 'excitement of
the mix". CDs are reported to sound good, too, when using the digital
output, but when switching from the digital to the analog outputs for
CD listening, 'the bass all but dropped out, and the music sounded
considerably leaner". SACD frequency response is given as
20 Hz - 56.9 kHZ +0.0009, -3 dB ; no figures given for CD playback.
Crossover frequencies and slopes are, again, different for CD versus SACD
SACD low pass: 12 db/octave rolloff above the -3dB pt of 120 Hz
DVD/CD low pass: 18 dB/octave rolloff above the -3 dB pt of 80 Hz
SACD high pass: 6 dB /oct rolloff below -3 dB pt of 120 Hz
DVD/CD high pass: 12 dB /oct rolloff below -3 dB pt of 80 Hz
It would appear that in (analog) SACD mode the player passes
considerably more mid and upper bass to the subwoofer than in (analog)
CD mode, which might account for the loss of bass impact when
comparing the two, especially if the reviewer was using small satellites.
In short, there's no consistent report of midbass leanness or
plasticness for the Sony devices reviewed. Rather, differences
in bass performances, where noted, are observed between formats
in multiformat players, and seem due to inconsistent
implementation of crossovers.
--
-S.
Gary Rosen
> As has been said here before, we are not evaluating "sound" (as in
artifact)
> here. We are evaluating a component's ability to pass/generate sound such
> that it fully delivers the "emotional" response of the live performance.
An electrical or mechanical component can only deliver electrons or
air pressure waves. The "emotional" response is created by the
performers and the listeners.
> And there seem to be factors in the way various components deliver in the
> real world under dynamic conditions that are not captured by conventional
> measurements and do not necessarily measure as static differences in
> frequency response or volume.
What is your evidence for this, other than comparisons some people claim to
have made under usually uncontrolled circumstances?
- Gary Rosen
Harry Lavo
See my extended reply to Tom's post. Electrical or mechanical components
can and do change the "sound" in subtle ways that either convey or inhibit
the emotional response.
As to evidence, it is well known phenomenon to most audiophiles...has it
been proved...nope . Nor has it been disproved. That is why I am
emphasizing the need for a control test.
chung
There is really no conceivable way a different grade of capacitors can
affect midband. I can believe that if the designer is incompetent, there
may be distortion at bass frequencies due to wrong capacitors being
used, or a droop at the upper edge (20KHz) due to caps used in filters
having too much variations in value. But midband is where capacitors do
not have an effect, in an amp or in a CD player.
Anyone who thinks that they can simply improve a Sony CD player by
replacing capacitors willy-nilly is doubting the Sony designers'
competence, and should not have bought a Sony CD player in the first place.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Well, one of your oldest ally in your arguments has learned that things like
>dielectric absorption matter too, so now Mr. Van Alstine is using caps
>chosen for their sound... Likely as recently as 2 years ago he would have
>agreed completely with you on this, but no more.
I have no problem with agreeing that DA makes a *measurable*
difference,(indeed it's a real pain when designing sample/hold
circuits) but in twenty years of careful experimentation with various
passive components, I was unable to *hear* any differences beyond
basic film/electrolytic - as soon as I began to use controlled
listening tests. Prior to that, I was a 'true believer' in all kinds
of component tweakery.
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> "josko" <jjbr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gwcub.228851$Fm2.229167@attbi_s04...
>> > "Lou" <newsacc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:FkStb.216711$Tr4.629569@attbi_s03...
>> > > I wish you lived near
>> > > Cincinnati, I have 2 Sony DVP-S9000ES's here, one with mods, one w/o.
>> > After
>> > > $112.30 in parts, the moded one sounds like live music because all the
>> > > grunge in the DC is gone, lowering the noise floor while the other is
>> > > fatiguing.
>> >
>> > So, why do you think that Sony did not produce DVP-S9000ES with those
>> > mods already in place? Are people who buy Sony not sophisticated enough
>> > to hear and to appreacite these obvious differences in sound? After
>> > all, with its procurement and production economies, Sony would be able
>> > to do these mods for a fraction of an enthusiast's cost.
>
>> Sony uses only middle-grade capacitors in their equipment which gives them
>> their "house sound", a slightly lean and sometimes "plasticy" mid-bass.
>
>Sounds like something readily measurable. If this is true then
>Sony products should display a characteristic midbass profile in
>frequency response curves. Do they? Are Sony amps and receivers
>notably less 'flat' in the midbass than other brands?
We saw the same rubbish quoted in the ragazines about Arcam players
having 'lightweight bass', despite the *fact* that the bass is
ruler-flat to less than 20Hz.
Harry Lavo
news:bpdg6...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Once again, orthodoxy comes up against empirical reality. So that cottage
industry is all based on mistaken impression by dozens of firms and hundreds
if not thousands of customers, eh?
Harry Lavo
First, Steven, I am talking about their cd players / sacd players, not
their receivers. Which I have not experience with. And I am not talking
just about my experience with about five items over ten years time, but of
others experience as well.
Second, you need to be able to reproduce their source components that are
good at transmitting dimensionality/depth...namely tube gear or ss that has
this ability (most don't) ...to hear it.
Third, it is a dynamic phenomenon, not a static one. I did not say it was a
frequency response anomaly, at least not a static one. It may be a dynamic
one. I am not positing a theory...I am simply saying that replacing caps
with better ones in the output circuit is a common mod to Sony gear that
seems to deliver a more unconstrained, transparent sound..especially in the
mid-bass.
Steven Sullivan
What *has* been proved is various types of *bias* can and do change the *perception*
of sound in ways that can greatly affect preference (which I take as a synonym
for 'emotional response'). One quite commmon
example is the effect of brand or price on the *perception* of quality
(even if the two items are in fact identical). Or the effect of simply
*assuming* a difference, whether or not there is one (which many
audiophiles have experienced, I'd bet).
Given what has been proved, it's an error to place bias-controlled
tests and the anecdotes of 'most audiophiles' on the same evidentiary level.
josko
If I understand you correctly, you would disagree with Stereophile which
rates Sony ES CD and multi-format players as state-of-the-art (judged by
their Class A status in the Recommended Component lists)?
> It seems to be a SONY engineering "belief system" that prevents their
use of
> better caps.
>
So, you think that SONY engineering staff, which very likely includes a
large number of EEs with MS and PhD degrees, is based on a "belief
system", while the "cottage industry" that you mentioned and enthusiasts
like Lou do their modifications based on thorough grasp of scientific
and engineering facts backed by controlled listening tests?
Harry Lavo
Yes, and a lively discussion right here on this group led to support for
that conclusion by those who listened, as opposed to those who merely
"opined".
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>"chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:bpdg6...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> Anyone who thinks that they can simply improve a Sony CD player by
>> replacing capacitors willy-nilly is doubting the Sony designers'
>> competence, and should not have bought a Sony CD player in the first
>place.
>
>Once again, orthodoxy comes up against empirical reality. So that cottage
>industry is all based on mistaken impression by dozens of firms and hundreds
>if not thousands of customers, eh?
Yup - same as the cable industry.
Mkuller
>I have no problem with agreeing that DA makes a *measurable*
>difference,(indeed it's a real pain when designing sample/hold
>circuits) but in twenty years of careful experimentation with various
>passive components,
> I was unable to *hear* any differences beyond
>basic film/electrolytic - as soon as I began to use controlled
>listening tests. Prior to that, I was a 'true believer' in all kinds
>of component tweakery.
>
It appears to me that your "unquestioning belief" in the "infallability of
dbts" overcame what you used to believe you were hearing.
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>But we're NOT evaluating the "music" or the performance of same. That is more
>properly done in a different mode. What I want to evaluate is whether this
>component IMPROVES the reproduction of sound (music is simply one of the
>sources of interest to me.)
>
Aha! This may be the key point that separates you - an avowed "soundophile"
from the average audiophile and explains why our points of view differ so. The
"musicality" is what it is all about for most of us. Yes, that also means
"realistic sound, but PRIMARILY reproducing music. In order to hear, process
and feel that emotional connection to the music, short bursts of sound, or
snippets from CDs will not work to provide that for us.
But if all we wanted to do was compare the "sounds", locomotives, ping-pong
balls or whatever, things not expected to elicit an emotional response - your
method would work great I suspect.
snip
>Actually I often find that 'emotional attachment' to program content is a
>detriment to sonic evaluation.
>
Exactly. I rest my case. Why use music at all for your comparisons then -
wouldn't random "sounds" be just as effective and even more efficient?
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>If I understand you correctly, you would disagree with Stereophile which
>rates Sony ES CD and multi-format players as state-of-the-art (judged by
>their Class A status in the Recommended Component lists)?
>
First, Stereophile is not infallable. Second, Class A or even state-of-the-art
does not mean "perfect in every respect". I suspect it could be considered
Class A if it did everything else well and still had a "plasticky sound" to the
midbass.
>Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:>
>> It seems to be a SONY engineering "belief system" that prevents their
>use of
>> better caps.
>>
>So, you think that SONY engineering staff, which very likely includes a
>large number of EEs with MS and PhD degrees, is based on a "belief
>system", while the "cottage industry" that you mentioned and enthusiasts
>like Lou do their modifications based on thorough grasp of scientific
>and engineering facts backed by controlled listening tests?
>
First, I suspect the Sony design staff are designing primarily to a price
point. Second, as we see demonstrated here every day, some EEs and engineers
have very strong belief systems which include the infallability of controlled
listening tests (dbts) and that cheap passive parts sound the same as more
expensive ones. That is not necessarily the case...
Regards,
Mike
Mkuller
>> As to evidence, it is well known phenomenon to most audiophiles...has it
>> been proved...nope . Nor has it been disproved. That is why I am
>> emphasizing the need for a control test.
>
An actual control test would be scientific proof that dbts work for what you
are advocating them for. No one disputes they work for other things in
academia and research. It is not sufficient to infer from this that they work
in comparing audio component differences using music in open-ended testing.
>Steven Sullivan ssu...@panix.com wrote:>
>What *has* been proved is various types of *bias* can and do change the
>*perception*
>of sound in ways that can greatly affect preference (which I take as a
>synonym
>for 'emotional response'). One quite commmon
>example is the effect of brand or price on the *perception* of quality
>(even if the two items are in fact identical). Or the effect of simply
>*assuming* a difference, whether or not there is one (which many
>audiophiles have experienced, I'd bet).
>
No one disputes that bias can affect sighted listening. What you seem to not
be willing to admit is that dbts interfere with open-ended audio component
comparisons using music. How can you be so sure they don't - where is your
scientific controlled proof?
>Given what has been proved, it's an error to place bias-controlled
>tests and the anecdotes of 'most audiophiles' on the same evidentiary level.
>
>"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
>-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
>
Your tongue may be in your cheek, but this is still the old "I'm right and
you're wrong because I have science on my side" arguement. Actually you aren't
using science but "inference" which is not the same thing as scientific proof.
Regards,
Mike
Harry Lavo
I am saying the former; I am not saying the latter. Conventional
engineering has little room for passive component "sound" since it is not an
important factor in most electrical engineering...but practitioners in the
field of audio know it is important based on empirical work. Neither the
ee's at Sony nor the upgrade practitioners use dbt's to the best of my
knowledge. One can surmise the Sony folk use theory and electrical modeling
since they produce a wide range of gear, almost completely for mass market,
and mostly *not* for audio; the upgrade practitioners vary...some combine
the same with substitution and listening; some just substitute and listen.
Conventional electrical engineering and audio design are not *quite* the
same thing. As I related in an earlier post, H-K found that out with the
NASA engineers..they produced electrically elegant designs that sounded
sh**ty from 1975 to 1980. It was only after Matti Otali (sp?) got involved
that they got decent sound back.
Sony's stuff doesn't sound bad at all...in fact their mass market SACD
players sound excellent for the price..they simply are not realized as
completely as they might be with a little more attention to parts quality
and voicing.
Steven Sullivan
What about those who measured, and/or listened in a bias-controlled fashion?
I vaguely recall such discussion, but can't seem to find the thread on google,
or the post that documents your conclusions above.
Can you point me to it? What I do see are scattered references to Arcam
CD player 'light bass'. If the cumulative wieght of these reports are
to be given credit, one crucial thing that's
needed is evidence that these are all independent observations, i.e.,
that they weren't influenced by *other* reviews (e.g. Gold's) that cite
'light bass' for Arcam ringDAC players.
Stewart, btw, claims to have done bias-controlled comaprisons and found the
Arcam CD-23 to be *different* from some other players -- but not inferior,
and not, afaict from the posts I see, bass-shy.
Consistently, what I see in your own posts, Harry, is a willingness to
extend the audiophile community a generous benefit of doubt, whereas
I and others are far more stingy in that regard. Your argument often
hinges on the 'thousands of audiophiles can't be wrong' point, but
surely all of us have observed dubious herd behavior in audiophilia
(e.g. green markers), no ? Do you agree that historically,
large groups of people can sometimes be *utterly* wrong about what consitutes
fact and reality? I suspect you do, since you have cited 'belief systems'
several times recently.
S888Wheel
<<
Consistently, what I see in your own posts, Harry, is a willingness to
extend the audiophile community a generous benefit of doubt, whereas
I and others are far more stingy in that regard.
Do you not consider yourself to be an audiophile Steven? I think those that
call themselves "objectivists" are part of the audiophile community along with
those who call themselves "subjectivists." I have seen a lot of subjectivists
claim that objectivists aren't true audiophiles and I have seen a lot of
objectivists claim that subjectivists aren't true audiophiles. I have also seen
audiophiles from both sides of the fence disparage audiophiles as a group of
people.
Steven said
<< Your argument often
hinges on the 'thousands of audiophiles can't be wrong' point, but
surely all of us have observed dubious herd behavior in audiophilia
(e.g. green markers), no ? Do you agree that historically,
large groups of people can sometimes be *utterly* wrong about what consitutes
fact and reality? I suspect you do, since you have cited 'belief systems'
several times recently.
I certainly do. I believe that neither camp in audiophilia really constitutes
that large a group. I believe that subjectivists could collectively be wrong
about a lot of their shared beliefs. Do you believe that objectivists could
collectively be wrong about many of their beliefs Steven? Or are you one the
many audiophiles from both sides of the fence that believes your side has a
monopoly on the truth? Are you saying it's a good idea to be skeptical, just
not about your beliefs?
Nousaine
...mostly snipped.....
>What I proposed was very simple...if a control test is done and supports
>your form of testing I will be happy to support it...if it supports sighted
>listening you should be happy to change your POV. If you really want to
>know the truth, do a test set up similar to Oohashi et al as well as dbt and
>sighted tests, and see which test the control (Oohashi-type) test mimics.
I've essentially done this by conducting untimed, user controlled blind
comparisons in reference systems said to easily demonstrate differences in amps
and cables with subjects free to use any criteria (emotion or otherwise) with
stimuli limited to acoustics.
>That will separate the advantages of "blind and comparative" from the
>advantages of "relaxed and evaluative". That is the missing control test.
I'd say that your job is to replicate that Oohashi experiment.
>
>As for emotional content, Tom, you (and some others as well) have a very
>strange view of this. I (and others here who have made the same argument)
>are talking about a physiological function of the brain's pleasure center,
>proven by science to be an important part of reaction to music.
Sure but an emotional reaction to music can also be had without acoustic input
or with sources that had no acoustic reference. Nature sounds cannot be read
from a sheet.
Not a "wow"
>effect from airplanes blowing through.
Wow is one thing. Proper tracking of moving sound with life-like timber and
other spatial considerations are others. As if, that sustained 16 Hz organ note
or full orchestra have no "wow" quality.
As in the difference as to why a toe
>starts tapping through one amplifier and not another with the same music; or
>why that favorite song on one cd player brings back all those happy memories
>with the first love, and on another it just kind of leaves you cold because
>it sounds a bit sterile and mechanical. Those kind of reactions. If you
>test two amplifiers, and using one you have an uncontrollable urge to duck
>the airplane, and using another you just hear it coming and going as an
>elegantly reproduced sound....that is the difference we are trying to get
>at.
Who has brought specifications into this discussion? Looks like a pickled
herring to me.
And it is not in the published specs. Or even as far as I can tell
>hear in the extended specs that define the "competent amp". But I suspect
>it is a phenomenon known to most audiophiles. And it is why we do not
>totally buy your belief that dbt'ng has proven most differences are
>imagination.
What is interesting is that despite appeals to emotion, obscure unrelated
experiments and lots of hand-waving that no one has ever shown that any
audiophile can decide when to tap his toes when nothing more than a blanket is
placed over the equipment terminals to eliminate prior-held bias from
influencing his decision.
IMO while no amount of experimentation can "prove" that your suppositions are
all imagination. But if they are true than why hasn't any audiophile or
interested party shown them to be a real effect?
Nousaine
>> nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:>
>>But we're NOT evaluating the "music" or the performance of same. That is
>more
>>properly done in a different mode. What I want to evaluate is whether this
>>component IMPROVES the reproduction of sound (music is simply one of the
>>sources of interest to me.)
>>
>
>Aha! This may be the key point that separates you - an avowed "soundophile"
>from the average audiophile and explains why our points of view differ so.
What? That acoustical sources other than music have no emotional content or
value? Your position is just another form of audiophile snobbery. Loon singing
on a quiet lake or sounds of a forest with a stream running through or a
summer's night rain shower somehow have no meaningful emotional content.
Please.
>The
>"musicality" is what it is all about for most of us. Yes, that also means
>"realistic sound, but PRIMARILY reproducing music. In order to hear, process
>and feel that emotional connection to the music, short bursts of sound, or
>snippets from CDs will not work to provide that for us.
Sure you are happy to confuse the realism/accuracy of sonic reproduction
with internal emotional factors many of which are internal and may have no
connection to the acoustics being generated in your listening environment.
When evaluating the quality of the sound being reproduced I find it quite
useful to separate them when I can.
Therefore, although alcohol often enhances apparent sound quality, I'd rather
not use it when I'm trying to assess the quality of sound that my system is
making.
>
>But if all we wanted to do was compare the "sounds", locomotives, ping-pong
>balls or whatever, things not expected to elicit an emotional response - your
>method would work great I suspect.
Actually to verify system/component quality emotional detachment is a very good
idea with any program source. When I want emotional involvement when listening
for amusmement and enjoyment I would use different programs. So what?
>
>snip
>>Actually I often find that 'emotional attachment' to program content is a
>>detriment to sonic evaluation.
>>
>
>Exactly. I rest my case. Why use music at all for your comparisons then -
>wouldn't random "sounds" be just as effective and even more efficient?
>Regards,
>Mike
Actually you are right. The single MOST sensitive source for revealing
acoustical differences is pink noise. It's only problem is that it's so
sensitive it can reveal differences that may never be encountered with musical
prgrams.
And, yes, I use it for evaluation frequently.
chung
>> >
>>
>> There is really no conceivable way a different grade of capacitors can
>> affect midband. I can believe that if the designer is incompetent,
>> there
>> may be distortion at bass frequencies due to wrong capacitors being
>> used, or a droop at the upper edge (20KHz) due to caps used in filters
>> having too much variations in value. But midband is where capacitors
>> do
>> not have an effect, in an amp or in a CD player.
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that they can simply improve a Sony CD player by
>> replacing capacitors willy-nilly is doubting the Sony designers'
>> competence, and should not have bought a Sony CD player in the first
> place.
> Once again, orthodoxy comes up against empirical reality. So that
> cottage
> industry is all based on mistaken impression by dozens of firms and
> hundreds
> if not thousands of customers, eh?
Empirical reality? Where is the measurement? Does anyone have a theory
as to why changing caps can modify the "midband" sound? Do you call
your personal testimonial "reality"?
The cottage industry of designer cables (you know, those that need
break-in and proper directivity) seems to be not going away. The cottage
industry of psychics is as healthy as ever. Just because there is a
cottage industry does not mean that it is based on science and facts.
If 1,000 people say that Elvis is still alive, does that make it true?
chung
> "josko" <jjbr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, you would disagree with Stereophile which
>> rates Sony ES CD and multi-format players as state-of-the-art (judged by
>> their Class A status in the Recommended Component lists)?
>>
>> > It seems to be a SONY engineering "belief system" that prevents their
>> use of
>> > better caps.
>> >
>>
>> So, you think that SONY engineering staff, which very likely includes a
>> large number of EEs with MS and PhD degrees, is based on a "belief
>> system", while the "cottage industry" that you mentioned and enthusiasts
>> like Lou do their modifications based on thorough grasp of scientific
>> and engineering facts backed by controlled listening tests?
>>
>
> I am saying the former; I am not saying the latter. Conventional
> engineering has little room for passive component "sound" since it is not an
> important factor in most electrical engineering...but practitioners in the
> field of audio know it is important based on empirical work.
So you don't think the engineers at Sony are practitioners in the field
of audio? These are the people who invented SACD, your favorite digital
technology!
Where is the "empirical work"? Has anyone published measured results?
> Neither the
> ee's at Sony nor the upgrade practitioners use dbt's to the best of my
> knowledge.
Harry, please understand the difference. The EE's at Sony use extensive
simulations and measurements to verify their design. The upgrade
practitioners use nothing other than sighted testing and wishful thinking.
> One can surmise the Sony folk use theory and electrical modeling
> since they produce a wide range of gear, almost completely for mass market,
> and mostly *not* for audio; the upgrade practitioners vary...some combine
> the same with substitution and listening; some just substitute and listen.
How about the Sony engineers that develop those state-of-the-art $$$$
SACD players? You think those guys didn't know that a different cap or a
resistor would make a sonic improvement?
>
> Conventional electrical engineering and audio design are not *quite* the
> same thing. As I related in an earlier post, H-K found that out with the
> NASA engineers..they produced electrically elegant designs that sounded
> sh**ty from 1975 to 1980. It was only after Matti Otali (sp?) got involved
> that they got decent sound back.
Of course, there are good designers and then there are bad designers. I
doubt Mr. Otali can take credit for getting decent sound back.
>
> Sony's stuff doesn't sound bad at all...in fact their mass market SACD
> players sound excellent for the price..they simply are not realized as
> completely as they might be with a little more attention to parts quality
> and voicing.
>
Where is the empirical evidence that the performance can be improved by
substituting caps and resistors, and when does a CD player or a SACD
player need "voicing"? Would you trust the upgrade practitioners more
than the Sony EE's to know what components to use?
If substituting caps and resistors can improve sound, don't you think
that those Sony EE's would have understood it by now?
Harry Lavo
Tell you what, Chung. Why don't you go to AudioAsylum, visit the high rez
forums, read a bit to figure out who some of the modifiers are that
participate there, and ask them straightforward questions about what they do
and what they know about what they do, including measurement, either in open
discussion or by private email. I think some of the answers might surprise
you (and I'm sure a few will not).
Harry Lavo
What I would hope you would see in my posts is the following:
1) Given no conclusive evidence that dbt'ng is the best available (e.g. most
accurate) tool for determining component differences/preferences in open
ended music listening, I do not give as much weight to the null results as
you do.
2) Given the fact that *some* audiophiles do careful sighted listening and
reach conclusions where they have no axe to grind or are actually biased
against the conclusions, I give some weight to those conclusions.
3) Where the latter seems to be the case (with or without magazine reviewers
reporting the same thing) among many audiophiles, I tend to believe the
conclusions until/unless proven definitively wrong. Occam's razor suggests
that if hundreds hear it independently, then the simplest answer is "they
heard it".
And btw, please drop the green pen strawman. Neither I nor any of my
audiophile friends has ever had the slightest interest in trying out green
pens. I'm not sure the actual number who have tried them is more than a few
hundred or thousand. Hardly a "herd". But it does make a convenient
bogyman for your arguments, I do agree.
Harry Lavo
news:uWzub.243270$Fm2.244393@attbi_s04...
I suspect for the same reason you don't:
1) lack of the environment, money, and time to set up such a test given that
we have real jobs
2) lack of interest in doing so at great personal sacrifice, since we (and
you) are pretty convinced already that we (you) are correct.
Nothing a McArthur grant wouldn't solve. :-)
S888Wheel
<<
What? That acoustical sources other than music have no emotional content or
value? Your position is just another form of audiophile snobbery. Loon singing
on a quiet lake or sounds of a forest with a stream running through or a
summer's night rain shower somehow have no meaningful emotional content.
Please.
I don't think anyone has said that non-musical sounds have no emotional content
for anybody. It is not snobbery for one to say that they find emotional content
only in music. It is snobbery to say that one's preferences are inherently more
valid than those of others.
Tom said
<<
Actually to verify system/component quality emotional detachment is a very good
idea with any program source. When I want emotional involvement when listening
for amusmement and enjoyment I would use different programs. So what?
Some of us think it is best to evaluate equipment as we intend to use it. Such
separation would be a problem for those of us who use this method
Steven Sullivan
> against the conclusions, I give some weight to those conclusions.
> 3) Where the latter seems to be the case (with or without magazine reviewers
> reporting the same thing) among many audiophiles, I tend to believe the
> conclusions until/unless proven definitively wrong. Occam's razor suggests
> that if hundreds hear it independently, then the simplest answer is "they
> heard it".
> And btw, please drop the green pen strawman. Neither I nor any of my
> audiophile friends has ever had the slightest interest in trying out green
> pens. I'm not sure the actual number who have tried them is more than a few
> hundred or thousand. Hardly a "herd". But it does make a convenient
> bogyman for your arguments, I do agree.
hmm.. if only a few hundred or a thousand ever tried it, and I managed to
score a 'green pen' disc by chance at a used CD shop in suburban Virginia,
how lucky was I?
As for the rest, needless to say, our premises diverge significantly.
Steven Sullivan
> ...mostly snipped.....
> >What I proposed was very simple...if a control test is done and supports
> >your form of testing I will be happy to support it...if it supports sighted
> >listening you should be happy to change your POV. If you really want to
> >know the truth, do a test set up similar to Oohashi et al as well as dbt and
> >sighted tests, and see which test the control (Oohashi-type) test mimics.
> I've essentially done this by conducting untimed, user controlled blind
> comparisons in reference systems said to easily demonstrate differences in amps
> and cables with subjects free to use any criteria (emotion or otherwise) with
> stimuli limited to acoustics.
> >That will separate the advantages of "blind and comparative" from the
> >advantages of "relaxed and evaluative". That is the missing control test.
> I'd say that your job is to replicate that Oohashi experiment.
Hopefully addressing the objections raised to its methodology
and reasoning the *last* five or six times Harry
brought this paper up (search google groups for 'Oohashi' to find them).
> >As for emotional content, Tom, you (and some others as well) have a very
> >strange view of this. I (and others here who have made the same argument)
> >are talking about a physiological function of the brain's pleasure center,
> >proven by science to be an important part of reaction to music.
> Sure but an emotional reaction to music can also be had without acoustic input
> or with sources that had no acoustic reference. Nature sounds cannot be read
> from a sheet.
> Not a "wow"
> >effect from airplanes blowing through.
> Wow is one thing. Proper tracking of moving sound with life-like timber and
> other spatial considerations are others. As if, that sustained 16 Hz organ note
> or full orchestra have no "wow" quality.
Whatever happened to 'realism'? A recording that can 'realistically'
sound like thunder in my room, or a train passing through, or a Pacific
beach, have a significant 'wow' factor as well...and it's because
it gives the illusion of reality...which one would think is linked to
evoking the 'emotional response' Harry seeks from his system.
Or do 'realism' and the 'absolute sound' *NOT* have much to do with each other?
Is the 'absolute sound' simply defined ad hoc as 'whatever makes my
toes tap' or 'whatever gives me an emotinal charge'?
Nousaine
..snips.....
nousaine wrote:>> IMO while no amount of experimentation can "prove" that your
suppositions
>are
>> all imagination. But if they are true than why hasn't any audiophile or
>> interested party shown them to be a real effect?
>>
>
>I suspect for the same reason you don't:
>
>1) lack of the environment, money, and time to set up such a test given that
>we have real jobs
Hogwash. I've gone pretty far out of my way, even when I held the equivalent of
2 full time jobs, to give these claims a fair shake. Spent my own money, paid
for my own travel, supplied the equipment, established the experiment ....
every reasonable condition ..... every rational concession .... and yet, no
cable/amp proponent has ever been able to reliably identify even their own gear
in their own reference systems under even the most modest of bias-controlled
conditions.
>2) lack of interest in doing so at great personal sacrifice, since we (and
>you) are pretty convinced already that we (you) are correct.
I've made the sacrifice. I even did it ON MYSELF, in the vrey early days. It
doesn't require great sacrifice or resource deployment. It only requires a need
to know the real truth and not just that which we wish were true.
I challenge YOU to conduct simple bias controlled tests to verify your
opinions. I've done this with myself, with other enthusiasts, other
audiophiles, audio professionals, housewives, school teachers, female college
students, high-end salesmen, economists and even machinists.
The real reason that no one has yet to show an ability to reliably identify
nominally competent amps and cables is because there is no audible difference.
If there were then someone would have shown this ability. Hey, I would have
stumbled across at least one by now.
>
>Nothing a McArthur grant wouldn't solve. :-)
I'd say that because you strongly hold such a strong position a little effort
and diligence on your part would not be without merit or even requirement.
I've done my part. I've done the work.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven said
> <<
> Consistently, what I see in your own posts, Harry, is a willingness to
> extend the audiophile community a generous benefit of doubt, whereas
> I and others are far more stingy in that regard.
> Do you not consider yourself to be an audiophile Steven?
The more I read of the club, the less I want to be considered a member.
> I think those that
> call themselves "objectivists" are part of the audiophile community along with
> those who call themselves "subjectivists." I have seen a lot of subjectivists
> claim that objectivists aren't true audiophiles and I have seen a lot of
> objectivists claim that subjectivists aren't true audiophiles. I have also seen
> audiophiles from both sides of the fence disparage audiophiles as a group of
> people.
I've seen *far* more subjectivists say objectivists weren't audiophiles, don't
really listen to music, don't understand the 'emotional' aspect, etc.
than I have seen objectivists say subjectivists aren't audiophiles.
> Steven said
> << Your argument often
> hinges on the 'thousands of audiophiles can't be wrong' point, but
> surely all of us have observed dubious herd behavior in audiophilia
> (e.g. green markers), no ? Do you agree that historically,
> large groups of people can sometimes be *utterly* wrong about what consitutes
> fact and reality? I suspect you do, since you have cited 'belief systems'
> several times recently.
> I certainly do. I believe that neither camp in audiophilia really constitutes
> that large a group. I believe that subjectivists could collectively be wrong
> about a lot of their shared beliefs. Do you believe that objectivists could
> collectively be wrong about many of their beliefs Steven?
Yes, just as I believe any scientific fact *could* be proved wrong.
Falsifiability , and all that. It's what makes objectivism work
as a truth-finding mechanism about the phsyical world, rather than a
religious system.
> Or are you one the
> many audiophiles from both sides of the fence that believes your side has a
> monopoly on the truth? Are you saying it's a good idea to be skeptical, just
> not about your beliefs?
Hardly. But all beliefs are not equally well supported, from an evidentiary
standpoint -- and conversely, all skepticism is not equally warranted.
For that matter, what level of skepticism do you apply to Oohashi's work? I
don't reject it out of hand; but I'd like to see it independently replicated
to address alternate explanations for the results. When all the results
come from one lab, that raises a flag. Perhaps subjectivsts should begin
encouraging the audiophile review press to adopt Oohashi's DBT protocol for
component comparison?
chung
Oh, AudioAsylum, where DBT discussions are forbidden and cable sound is
a given? If that is where "audiophiles" get expert knowledge from, that
explains a lot of things I read here.
Anyway, I went there and couldn't find any High Rez forum, so I checked
out the tweakers/DIY section. I found discussions on where to use
Bybees, on whether to use limestone to isolate source vibrations, and
Blackgate vs Nichicon Muse KZ's. Here is how the last one started:
"I found the KZ's to be more detailed, with more air around the
instruments. Bass was more defined and extended and so were the highs.
They had very good timing and better dynamics than the BG's, They really
shone when mated with the LM6172."
"The BG's are different, Noise floor is much lower, soundstage is
deeper, but the bass compared to the KZ's appear to be a bit smeared,
and the highs a tad rolled off.however they are so much more natural and
organic than the KZ's, giving a greater sense of involvement and
realism, In the end of the day I felt less shaken and incisive as
inspired by the KZ's, but more emotional involved with the materia and
musicians inspired by the BG's.In other words one can describe the
difference between the two as tubes(BG), Hi-Fi(KZ)."
These are worse than high-end reviews. Do you honestly think these guys
know what they are doing?
A total waste of time, those forums.
BTW, how do you quantify how much "air" there is around instruments? How
do you measure "timing" for a capacitor? Oh, and what exactly do you
guys mean when you said the mid-band sounds plasticky?
Gary Rosen
news:mdvub.182347$ao4.613723@attbi_s51...
> No one disputes that bias can affect sighted listening. What you seem to
not
> be willing to admit is that dbts interfere with open-ended audio component
> comparisons using music.
So sighted tests don't work, dbts don't work - I guess we can just go
ahead and claim whatever we want.
> How can you be so sure they don't - where is your
> scientific controlled proof?
If they work elsewhere, why shouldn't they work for audio? You're the
one thus making the extraordinary claim. And once again, there is no
reason a dbt cannot be applied to an "open-ended" audio comparison.
- Gary Rosen
Nousaine
Let me give you my capacitor experience. In the early 80s Richard Marsh and
Walt Jung published articles in The Audio Amateur that gave birth to the
Capacitor urban legend.
I fell hook, lone and sinker for this stuff. Indeed, after cannibailzing film
(10 uFd and 1% tolerance) capacitors from a telephone central office that was
being replaced I found that substituting some of these for the electrolytic
coupling capacitors in my 200 watt power amplifer dramatically "improved" the
sound.
Furthermore my wife, children and several audiophiles also verified these sonic
improvments.
Until that fatefu day when one of my friends was over and asked me to "do that
capacitor" thing again. Because I had included a switching device to make the
demonstration easier to conduct, it was easy to simply say "this is the good
one", play a segment and then find that the switch had inadvertantely left in
the "wrong" position. Completing the comparison I discovered that my friend had
attributed the sonci benefits of the 'bad' capacitor to the other.
Needing referent I later asked my son to operate the switch and not tell me
which was playing at any given time. I was shocked to find that even I was
unable to differentiate capacitors when I didn't "know" in advance which
capacitor was in the circuit. Even more interesting was that I was unable to
differentiate either capacitor from a wire-bypass.
Stewart Pinkerton
Not at all, simply the application of basic controls to what I
*thought* I heard in sighted tests. Further experiments proved the
point to my satisfaction - no need for any belief systems here,
reliable and repeatable *evidence* is definitely the way forward!
Stewart Pinkerton
>First, Steven, I am talking about their cd players / sacd players, not
>their receivers.
Makes no diffierence - these claims are simply unsupportable by *any*
evidence.
>Second, you need to be able to reproduce their source components that are
>good at transmitting dimensionality/depth...namely tube gear or ss that has
>this ability (most don't) ...to hear it.
Harry, *everyone* hears that extra touch of microphonic reverb to
which tube gear is prone - this has nothing to do with 'transmitting'
depth, it's simply an *added* artifact.
>Third, it is a dynamic phenomenon, not a static one. I did not say it was a
>frequency response anomaly, at least not a static one. It may be a dynamic
>one. I am not positing a theory
Sure you are - you're saying that some mysterious thing called
'dynamic midrange detail' exists.
>..I am simply saying that replacing caps
>with better ones in the output circuit is a common mod to Sony gear that
>seems to deliver a more unconstrained, transparent sound..especially in the
>mid-bass.
Unfortunately, this claim is not supported by *any* controlled
listening tests. Just more wishful thinking and purple prose from the
back-street mod squad.
Nousaine
Well I do use musical programs for evaluation; ones that have been selected to
provide an audio obstacle course to test the equipment at the limits of likely
audible limits.
But it doesn't help me to use a program with strong personal emotional content
musically to evaluate the "sound" being delivered to my ears. It may even be a
confounding factor, where the program content masks the acoustical sound being
delivered.
I have programs that were recorded with an ORTF microphone arrangement
literally beside my front row listening seat to use for reference.
And I have reference material where I've discussed the sound with the recording
and mastering engineers for reference which gives me a good feel for what they
thought the sound was supposed to be.
But, quite frankly music programs with strong personal attachment to the
evaluator are more often than not confounding factors in an evaluation sense.
The "real" music lovers I know tend to play an instrument and write music.
End-user reproduced sound enthusiasts tend to be "sound" freaks and not true
music lovers.
I attend many concerts; am driving 3 hours this weekend to hear Ruthie Foster
in a small venue. Is the sound important to me. Damn right. Simon & Garfunkel's
tour opening night last month was a good show with pretty dismal sound.
"G I Juke Box" last month at the Beardsley Theater (180 seats) was a pretty
amazing event. It was emulating 1940s music such as programs soldiers would
hear at USO shows.
At the start an actor came out and was speaking into one of those shiny square
microphones on a tall stand. With a little examination I noted that there was
no wire attached to the mic stand. The mics were PROPS and the show (2 male and
2 female vocalists; piano, acoustic bass and drum kit) was entirely acoustic.
So I am a "music" lover but I would rather separate my program choices from the
actual sound being delivered. And I find that programs other than music can
deliver equally "emotional" response.
And I have system demands that exceed normal orchestral or other acoustic music
material. For example I demand my personal system have capability to deliver 16
Hz organ material at reference level but ALSO has to deliver ANY commerically
available program at reference level at full bandwidth.
It's true that most people will never need to get full bandwidth reproduction
of radial-engined aircraft found on "Round Sounds" (Aircraft Records) but I
expect my system to play this at reference level.
Does this disqualify me as a "music" lover? I don't thinkk so. Does this
disqualify my system's "musicality" capability on limited bandwidth programs? I
think not.
But to determine that initial capability is much easier with non-music sources,
including special test signals.
Harry Lavo
No it is fallacious conclusion on Tom's part. He did not do anything
ressembling a protomonadic controlled test. I address this in another post.
Nope, the absolute sound will make you duck. otherwise, you will just pay
attention to the sound. and like sighted bias, this is not conscious.
normanstrong
> > replacing capacitors willy-nilly is doubting the Sony designers'
> > competence, and should not have bought a Sony CD player in the
first
> place.
>
> Once again, orthodoxy comes up against empirical reality. So that
cottage
> industry is all based on mistaken impression by dozens of firms and
hundreds
> if not thousands of customers, eh?
Does this surprise you? There are lots of industries based entirely
on mistaken impressions of thousands--nay, millions--of people.
Norm Strong
Harry Lavo
>
> ...mostly snipped.....
>
> >What I proposed was very simple...if a control test is done and supports
> >your form of testing I will be happy to support it...if it supports
sighted
> >listening you should be happy to change your POV. If you really want to
> >know the truth, do a test set up similar to Oohashi et al as well as dbt
and
> >sighted tests, and see which test the control (Oohashi-type) test mimics.
>
> I've essentially done this by conducting untimed, user controlled blind
> comparisons in reference systems said to easily demonstrate differences in
amps
> and cables with subjects free to use any criteria (emotion or otherwise)
with
> stimuli limited to acoustics.
>
> >That will separate the advantages of "blind and comparative" from the
> >advantages of "relaxed and evaluative". That is the missing control
test.
>
> I'd say that your job is to replicate that Oohashi experiment.
>
Sorry Tom, the "control" you outline is still "blind and comparative", not
"relaxed and evaluative". Your subject after listening at will still has to
then switch back and forth and make a choice. That puts him in a
comparative mode, and as the end nears where he has to make the choice, into
a position of left brain evaluation.
Let's review what a blind protomonadic audio test must be.... Oohashi et al
got it right as far as protocol is concerned although they actually had it
easy since they were only using one musical segment.
First, a totally relaxed but controlled environment. Oohashi did this by
putting a reclining chair in a controlled environment (light, temperature).
In their case they faced the chair towards a picture window with a peaceful
view of the outdoors. Probably a window looking out on the ocean might be
better. In a practical sense, any place that is comfortable, pleasantly
furnished, relaxing, and quiet probably would suffice. All equipment except
the loudspeakers are in another room.
Second, the test is not comparative. The "segments" of the test (where the
music is played) are distributed randomly - component "a", music segment "a"
may be followed by "component a", music segment "b", followed by component
"b", music segment "b", followed again by "a", music segment "c", etc.
etc. - with the only caveat that each component, music segment combo must be
rated an equal number of times. This can/should be done at random. Each
segment is rated on a scorecard....since the candidate doesn't know what is
being tested, all he/she can do is rate the musical reproduction, which is
what he/she is asked to do. Segments would be 3-4 mins long; their would be
about 3 mins allowed between segments (as per Oohashi).
Finally, a statistical analysis is done of the answers. "a" component
segments are averaged. "b" component segments are averaged. A null
hypothesis is applied against each rating and probabilities/significance
applied. This can be done for individuals (the practical limitation that it
would have to be broken into sessions to prevent fatigue/boredom) as well as
for groups of participants as was done in Oohashi's case (where each
participant may have fewer segments to rate).
This approximates in a refined, controlled way what the average audio
attempts to do in his own extended component testing "in system". And it
provides an explicit evaluative rating rather than just jotted notes or
impressions.
It is blind and has all bias controls
It is relaxed and evaluative...ratings are done "after" each segment of
total immersion in the music
It is comparative only be statistical analysis, not be forcing the
individuals to make a choice.
*************************************************************************
Two components could be tested this way.
They could also be tested under typical a-b and abx techniques.
They could also be tested "in place" in test subjects own systems using
their own evaluation techniques
The results could be compared to determine which convention test approach
gave the same/similar results to the control test.
*************************************************************************
If your favorite dbt (a-b or abx) reflected the control and sighted testing
did not, your test is validated.
If sighted home testing reflected the control and your favorite dbt did not,
then your test is invalidated
**************************************************************************
If I were running the test, I would choose components this way:
* get informal home evaluations from a group of audiophiles who definitely
feel that hear a difference/prefer one component over the other...cd player,
tuner, amplifier...you name it...anything except speakers.
* run your conventional dbt presumably showing no difference.
* put together musical segments designed to get at what the subjects
described as the difference from their home listening, set up and run the
protomonadic test using those components and segments.
* use 1-to-5 ratings scales similar to Oohashi et al, using questions that
implicitly get at the factors felt to be different (i.e. caught up in the
music, real sounding, well balanced top to bottom, rich and full, full
soundstage, deep soundstage, makes my toes tap, etc.). These scales are
applied to the segment, not used comparatively.
**************************************************************
Anybody want to put me in for that McArthur Grant? :-)
Harry. Lavo
"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington
Steven Sullivan
> Actually to verify system/component quality emotional detachment is a very good
> idea with any program source. When I want emotional involvement when listening
> for amusmement and enjoyment I would use different programs. So what?
> Some of us think it is best to evaluate equipment as we intend to use it. Such
> separation would be a problem for those of us who use this method
By this method, a copper bracelet might well be concluded to 'help' one's
arthritis. Which is fine if one wants to *believe* that, but if one wants to
*assert* it as an accurate cause-and-effect chain, one can expect a fair amount of
skepticism.
Harry Lavo
Well, then you didn't look very hard, since it is once of the main forums
listed. If you could find DIY/Tweaks, you could find HiRez.
[ Moderator's note: I didn't see it either on their home page. After
clicking on "General" it then showed up. -- deb]
The rest of this is irrelevant..I was speaking strictly of the high-rez
forums. I don't even bother with tweaks.
S888Wheel
BTW, how do you quantify how much "air" there is around instruments? How
do you measure "timing" for a capacitor? Oh, and what exactly do you
guys mean when you said the mid-band sounds plasticky?
quantified and tied to a specific measurement by the one giving the
description. This seems to be a common problem here. If I said a room was dead
would you complain about the fact that rooms are not organisms and cannot be
dead or alive? Would you not understand what I meant without a measurement of
that room's acoustics. If I say something sounds bright do you complain that
there is no measurable light coming from the playback and without citing a
frequency response you simply have no idea what I am talking about? If I say
the food is spicy would you be bothered that I didn't give you a pH level?
There are ways of describing sound without citing measurements that some people
will understand. I think I have an idea what plasticky means. I can't quantify
it for you.
Bruce Abrams
news:UKCub.241574$HS4.2122018@attbi_s01...
*snip*
> What I would hope you would see in my posts is the following:
>
> 1) Given no conclusive evidence that dbt'ng is the best available (e.g.
most
> accurate) tool for determining component differences/preferences in open
> ended music listening, I do not give as much weight to the null results as
> you do.
>
> 2) Given the fact that *some* audiophiles do careful sighted listening and
> reach conclusions where they have no axe to grind or are actually biased
> against the conclusions, I give some weight to those conclusions.
>
> 3) Where the latter seems to be the case (with or without magazine
reviewers
> reporting the same thing) among many audiophiles, I tend to believe the
> conclusions until/unless proven definitively wrong. Occam's razor
suggests
> that if hundreds hear it independently, then the simplest answer is "they
> heard it".
We would greatly disagree on the application of Occam's Razor here. Given
the body of engineering knowledge that passive components shouldn't have any
effect on mid-band sound, all nominally competant cables should sound the
same, etc.; and given the amount of press hype and peer pressure to hear
differences between cables where none should exist, the simplest answer by
far is that if hundreds hear it independently, they were likely all subject
to the same externally imposed biases. And, the more people claim to hear
such differences, the more difficult it becomes to not hear them for fear
that someone will call your 'audiophile credentials' into question.
Harry Lavo
news:bpg4h...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Let's lay this one to rest, again. There is a vast difference to listening
to a "sound" or artifact versus doing open-end evaluation of a components
ability to reproduce music with full emotional impact. That is the crux of
the difference.
Steven Sullivan
> Oh, AudioAsylum, where DBT discussions are forbidden and cable sound
> is
> a given? If that is where "audiophiles" get expert knowledge from,
> that
> explains a lot of things I read here.
The place is aptly named; however, to be fair, I would point
out that only *some* of its areas are 'DBT-free'.
The cable area being hte only one I'm aware of (ironic, of course,
in that cables discussion are arguably the ones most desperately
in need of reality-checking.)
> Anyway, I went there and couldn't find any High Rez forum, so I
> checked
> out the tweakers/DIY section. I found discussions on where to use
> Bybees, on whether to use limestone to isolate source vibrations, and
> Blackgate vs Nichicon Muse KZ's. Here is how the last one started:
The hi-rez forums are
SACD Hi Rez Highway
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/bbs.html
DVD-A Autobahn
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dvda/bbs.html
You could also go to the www.hometheaterfroum.com, where on threads
like this you get two-for-one folklore from audiophiles
(touting mods *and* break-in periods)
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/
showthread.php?s=&threadid=162534&perpage=30&display=&pagenumber=1
> do you measure "timing" for a capacitor? Oh, and what exactly do you
> guys mean when you said the mid-band sounds plasticky?
IIIRC he wrote that of the mid*bass* originally.
S888Wheel
>
>> Actually to verify system/component quality emotional detachment is a very
>good
>> idea with any program source. When I want emotional involvement when
>listening
>> for amusmement and enjoyment I would use different programs. So what?
I said
>
>> Some of us think it is best to evaluate equipment as we intend to use it.
>Such
>> separation would be a problem for those of us who use this method
>
Steven said
>
>By this method, a copper bracelet might well be concluded to 'help' one's
>arthritis. Which is fine if one wants to *believe* that, but if one wants to
>*assert* it as an accurate cause-and-effect chain, one can expect a fair
>amount of
>skepticism.
>
Quite the opposite. If one wants to test the copper bracelet in a medical study
it would be used exactly as it is intended to be used only there would be a
control group. Medical studies do things right in this way.
chung
A dead room has a fairly well-stablished meaning of little reflections
or standing waves.
If you say something is bright, I would make an educated guess that the
upper mid-range and treble are elevated in level.
When you said food is spicy, we all understand what you meant, although
how spicy obviously varies from one to another.
Now, when you said midband is placticky, you think you know what it
meant, but you can't really describe it in any scientific or measureable
terms. How in the world do you know that your definition of plasticky is
the same as Mr. Lavo's or anyone else's?
Of course, you are also correct that there are many terms used by
audiophiles that are not quantifiable, and the problem is that there is
no universal agreement on what it means.
Tell me now, what does fast timing in a capacitor mean? How about a
relaxed bass? And how much air is right, or can you have too much air
around an instrument?
Steven Sullivan
<discussion of Oohashi results snipped>
Harry, you've been here before. See Bob Marcus'
critique of your claims about Oohashi's work,
from a previous RAHE thread (followed by your response)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=blBQa.60322%24H17.19111%40sccrnsc02&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
I wonder if using different '5 point' debriefing questionnaires would
produce different results. I wonder, too, if Oohashi would be willing to
supply his raw data to anyone. From what I've read on various fora,
before this work was published (and it was in the works for a decade or
so) it was rejected by the JAES (though non-peer-reviewed abstracts have
appeared in AES convention journals) and requests for data were rebuffed.
Oohashi is exploring the 'hypersonic effect', btw. Most
recently:
Neurosci Lett. 2003 Nov 20;351(3):191-195. Related Articles, Links
Modulatory effect of inaudible high-frequency sounds on human acoustic
perception.
Yagi R, Nishina E, Honda M, Oohashi T.
Department of Cyber Society and Culture, The Graduate University for
Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI), Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan
We evaluated the effects of the intensity of an inaudible
high-frequency component (HFC) of sound on human responses by employing a
multi-parametric approach consisting of behavioral measurements of the
comfortable listening level (CLL), psychological measurements of the
subjective impression of sounds, and physiological measurements using
electroencephalogram (EEG). Increasing the intensity of the inaudible HFC
resulted in a significant increase in the CLL, the subjective impression
of sounds, and the occipital alpha frequency component of the spontaneous
EEG. These effects peaked with an increase of 6 dB in HFC intensity. The
results of the present study suggest that the intensity of inaudible HFC
non-linearly modulates human sound perception.
chung
Well, I clicked on the SACD forum link, and then it says Hi-Rez Highway
at the top of the page. Is that the forum you are referrring to?
I scanned through all two pages of threads started this month, and there
were only a couple of current threads (out of more than a hundred) that
mentioned modding, like "You are not going believe how good it sounds
after modding...", or "Who offers a mod for Marantz Sa-14v1?", but with
no technical info at all.
I don't think people on that forum are interested in modding. They
mainly talk about new releases, and stock players.
By the way, if modding is not discussed in "tweaks/DIY", where else?
Isn't a mod simply a tweak? Or are you saying that mods cannot be DIY
projects?
Based on what I have seen so far, I don't think mods are popular at all,
even on AudioAsylum. Not that it makes any difference as far as the
validity of mods go.
You seem to put quite a bit of faith on the modders. How come they never
show measurements? If indeed the mods make such a big difference, don't
you think there will be changes in frequency response, noise floor or
distortion that are measureable?
Oh, you still have not asnwered what you meant by "midband sounding
plasticky".
Nousaine
It's interesting that in one case Mr Lavo suggests that simply because it was
reported by hundreds in the first example means that "they heard" it while in
the second instance the same logic can't be used.
This is standard methodology in the High-End defense community. Data that seems
to support a given premise even in an off-hand way (often with fairly large
hidden assumptions such as 'hundreds or thousands of audiophiles without axes
to grind have independently reported hearing XXX' ) is gladly accepted and
extrapolated while real, replicated and replicable, experimental results are
ignored or rejected outright.
I'm thinking your sign-off-line is quite ironic. "They've got God on their
side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
I'll repeat my offer to Mr Lavo or any genuinely interested party.
I'll share costs (set-up, travel) of a bias-conntrolled experiment (ABX;
same/different/ switched or cable-swapped) that tests amp and/or cable
differences; and pay any subject $100 who can reliably identify his own
nominally competent amplifier/wires from a nominally compent (or response
matched) mid-fi amplifier/wires I'll supply in a minimum of 10 trials. No
listening time limits and subject selects program material.
Results will be fully reported on this newgroup following.
Harry Lavo
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> <discussion of Oohashi results snipped>
>
> Harry, you've been here before. See Bob Marcus'
> critique of your claims about Oohashi's work,
> from a previous RAHE thread (followed by your response)
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=blBQa.60322%24H17.19111%40sccrnsc02&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
Yep the objections were pretty shaky then, and continue to be.
> I wonder if using different '5 point' debriefing questionnaires would
> produce different results. I wonder, too, if Oohashi would be willing to
> supply his raw data to anyone. From what I've read on various fora,
> before this work was published (and it was in the works for a decade or
> so) it was rejected by the JAES (though non-peer-reviewed abstracts have
> appeared in AES convention journals) and requests for data were rebuffed.
>
You partly miss the point. The rating scale allows you to quantify your
subjective reactions to a given input after a relaxed, evaluative
listen...it does not force/require comparison. Yet if differences exist,
the statistical analysis will bring it out without the subject ever having
to go into comparative mode. That's why it is called a proto-monadic test.
Proto- meaning sequential testing of more than one variable (could also be
called quasi-monadic); monadic meaning that only the variable under the test
is rated, on a monadic (not comparative) scale. It is one of the three most
common forms of testing done in the food business. I commissioned dozens
and dozens of them during my 20 years in that industry. And by the way,
while comparative testing is used early on in food product developement
(kind of like H-K's use of dbt'ng), the final evaluation was always done
either monadically (two separate samples of 300-400 testing/rating each
product by itself) or proto-mondadically (sample of four hundered testing
sequentially but rating monadically, with half the sample receiving "a"
first and half "b" first in order to eliminate order bias). Just to show
you the lengths we went to, samples usually were given completely meaningess
numbers, eg. 467 and 593, rather than "a" and "b".
> Oohashi is exploring the 'hypersonic effect', btw. Most
> recently:
>
He was in the article I quote, as well. But his work in that study broke
into three parts, only one of which was at all controversial:
1) the test protocol itself, which was far more sophisticated than anything
presented here as being used in the audio industry so far.
2) the simultaneous physiological EEG measurements, which clearly showed
that there is a correlation between the quality of perceived sound and
stimulation of the brains emotional center, and further that this reaction
took about twenty seconds to fully develop once the musical piece started.
3) the conclusion that music recorded and played back through a system with
ultrasonic frequency response elicited significantly (in the statistical
sense) more positive results than when played back without ultrasonic
frequencies.
It is number three above that challenges conventional wisdom and which was
attacked here. But 1) and 2) above are beyond challenge.
> Neurosci Lett. 2003 Nov 20;351(3):191-195. Related Articles, Links
>
> Modulatory effect of inaudible high-frequency sounds on human acoustic
> perception.
>
> Yagi R, Nishina E, Honda M, Oohashi T.
>
> Department of Cyber Society and Culture, The Graduate University for
> Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI), Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan
>
> We evaluated the effects of the intensity of an inaudible
> high-frequency component (HFC) of sound on human responses by employing a
> multi-parametric approach consisting of behavioral measurements of the
> comfortable listening level (CLL), psychological measurements of the
> subjective impression of sounds, and physiological measurements using
> electroencephalogram (EEG). Increasing the intensity of the inaudible HFC
> resulted in a significant increase in the CLL, the subjective impression
> of sounds, and the occipital alpha frequency component of the spontaneous
> EEG. These effects peaked with an increase of 6 dB in HFC intensity. The
> results of the present study suggest that the intensity of inaudible HFC
> non-linearly modulates human sound perception.
>
Yep, in the article I quoted he found that the pleasure center EEG response
was elevated when ultrasonic frequencies were present as compared to silence
(one control), to sounds cut off at 22khz (the so-called "cd control"), and
to sounds cut off at 26khz (which was used as control in the test in order
to eliminate lower-order ripple effects.). The heightened EEG response also
correlated with statistically significant responses on the evaluative
ratings (at the 99% and 95% level).
Thanks for the tip on the later article. I also see there was a paper given
at this year's AES that investigated that phenomenon (and purports to have
generated inconclusive results..but I haven't yet seen the article so don't
know how well done it was).
Steven Sullivan
> I said
> Steven said
It has not been my impression that audiophiles 'intend to use' components
in a bias-controlled fashion. In fact, the common complaint is that
imposition of such controls somehow interferes with the intended
use of such components.
S888Wheel
<<
> <<
> BTW, how do you quantify how much "air" there is around instruments? How
> do you measure "timing" for a capacitor? Oh, and what exactly do you
> guys mean when you said the mid-band sounds plasticky?
>
I said
<< > It seems you have trouble with descriptions of sonic impressions that
aren't
> quantified and tied to a specific measurement by the one giving the
> description. This seems to be a common problem here. If I said a room was
dead
> would you complain about the fact that rooms are not organisms and cannot be
> dead or alive? Would you not understand what I meant without a measurement of
> that room's acoustics. If I say something sounds bright do you complain that
> there is no measurable light coming from the playback and without citing a
> frequency response you simply have no idea what I am talking about? If I say
> the food is spicy would you be bothered that I didn't give you a pH level?
<< > There are ways of describing sound without citing measurements that some
people
> will understand. I think I have an idea what plasticky means. I can't
quantify
> it for you.
Chung said
<<
A dead room has a fairly well-stablished meaning of little reflections
or standing waves.
<<
If you say something is bright, I would make an educated guess that the
upper mid-range and treble are elevated in level.
Exactly. You would make an educated guess. What would your education be in this
case? I'm going to make an educated guess and say it is the hobby of audio.
Shared experiences with other audiophiles.
Chung said
<<
When you said food is spicy, we all understand what you meant, although
how spicy obviously varies from one to another.
People understand via common experiences and interest in the subject matter.
Chung said
<<
Now, when you said midband is placticky, you think you know what it
meant, but you can't really describe it in any scientific or measureable
terms. How in the world do you know that your definition of plasticky is
the same as Mr. Lavo's or anyone else's?
It does not matter if I can describe it in any scientific or measurable terms
any more than it doesn't matter that the average Joe can't do the same thing
with spicy food. How in the world do you know that what you think is spicy is
the same as what I think is spicy? If we get together and eat spicy food and
talk about it we both have a better idea of what the other considers spicy. If
audiophiles get together and hear a quality in the midband that they describe
as plasticky then they have a common understanding of the description. That is
pretty much how language works isn't it?
Chung said
<<
Of course, you are also correct that there are many terms used by
audiophiles that are not quantifiable, and the problem is that there is
no universal agreement on what it means.
Did I say they weren't quantifiable? If I did I take it back. I may not be able
to quantify what sounds plasticky to me and many others may not either but that
doesn't mean it isn't quantifiable.
Chung said
<<
Tell me now, what does fast timing in a capacitor mean? How about a
relaxed bass? And how much air is right, or can you have too much air
around an instrument?
I think the term speed is usually associated with a sense of clarity. For
instance electrostatic speakers are often described as quick or fast. So I
would guess it is the same quality. I would take relaxed bass as the opposite
of boomy one note bass one gets from the guy blasting rap in the car that can
be heard before it can be seen. I would suspect that one would consider a
finger strummed acoustic bass to sound more relaxed than Chris Squire picking
his Rickenbacker (spelling) electric bass. I suspect the right amount of "air"
probably has a lot to do with the right amount of very high frequency
information. Some MC cartridges have what I would call an excessive "sense of
air" and they also tend to have a rise in the extreme highs in their frequency
response. Yes, you can have a sense of too much air around the instrument. Now,
I hope you realize that no one is literally talking about quantities of air
just as no one is talking about light levels when they talk about something
sounding bright. What I believe is being talked about is the degree of the
illusion of the presence of an instrument and it's immediate surroundings.
Harry Lavo
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:bpg49...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > "chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:bpein...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
>snip, not relevant to post<
> Well, I clicked on the SACD forum link, and then it says Hi-Rez Highway
> at the top of the page. Is that the forum you are referrring to?
>
> I scanned through all two pages of threads started this month, and there
> were only a couple of current threads (out of more than a hundred) that
> mentioned modding, like "You are not going believe how good it sounds
> after modding...", or "Who offers a mod for Marantz Sa-14v1?", but with
> no technical info at all.
>
> I don't think people on that forum are interested in modding. They
> mainly talk about new releases, and stock players.
>
On the contrary, it is once of the most popular subjects there. Perhaps not
today or yesterday, but overall. Search the archievesl. You'll find
it...lots of it.
> By the way, if modding is not discussed in "tweaks/DIY", where else?
> Isn't a mod simply a tweak? Or are you saying that mods cannot be DIY
> projects?
>
I don't know since I don't visit that forum. But I don know the
professional mod'rs (the ones people lay out good money too) participate
regularly in the SACD and DVD-A hi-rez forums.
> Based on what I have seen so far, I don't think mods are popular at all,
> even on AudioAsylum. Not that it makes any difference as far as the
> validity of mods go.
>
Your sample size is too small.
> You seem to put quite a bit of faith on the modders. How come they never
> show measurements? If indeed the mods make such a big difference, don't
> you think there will be changes in frequency response, noise floor or
> distortion that are measureable?
>
I don't put faith or not put faith. I am simply telling you about the
discussion that goes on here and suggest you express your concerns directly
with them.
> Oh, you still have not asnwered what you meant by "midband sounding
> plasticky".
Well, as somebody else pointed out, I said "plasticky sounding mid-bass" not
"mid-band". It signifies a slight dynamic compression and lack of
transparency in this part of the frequency spectrum...sort of like if the
music expands dynamically, this portion of the spectrum is straining against
a plastic wrap trying to hold it in/down and creating a slightly opaque
transient quality. It sounds more constrained/opaque than the unit does in
other parts of the frequency range.
I'm not sure you'll find this any more enlightening. But if you listen and
hear it once, you'll tend to recognize it thereafter. It's very subtle, but
it is the kind of thing that often stands between very good and state-of-the
art equipment.
Steven Sullivan
>
well, given that I swiped it from one of those fake 'Man on the Street'
questionnaires on THe Onion's site, I suspect you're right. ;>
> I'll repeat my offer to Mr Lavo or any genuinely interested party.
> I'll share costs (set-up, travel) of a bias-conntrolled experiment (ABX;
> same/different/ switched or cable-swapped) that tests amp and/or cable
> differences; and pay any subject $100 who can reliably identify his own
> nominally competent amplifier/wires from a nominally compent (or response
> matched) mid-fi amplifier/wires I'll supply in a minimum of 10 trials. No
> listening time limits and subject selects program material.
> Results will be fully reported on this newgroup following.
Heck, if they pass that test, they'll be ready to go for the
'Cable Difference' pot, something on the order of a thousand bucks or more,
won't they?
But my understanding at the point is that Harry doesn't 'believe in' the
common conception of ABX -- that is, a test where the person must 'switch'
between two components during the trial, using short segments of music.
However, Oohashi's paper indicates that only 200 seconds of 'natural
music' [gamelan] as sound stimuli are needed to replicate his results;
his snippets were each about 3.5 minutes long. Also, the subjects *were*
presented series of such tracks (differing only in HF content), with short
intervals between the tracks and sessions, meaning it *wasn't* the sort
of protracted protomonadic test where the subject listened for hours, or
even days, at a time, to one sound and then made their report on it
before moving on to the next sound. IN other words, it seems to me it was
more like a standard ABX test than the 'relaxed open-ended comparison'
Harry describes.
Then, too, the subjects were wearing EKG paraphenalia during hte
experiments (standard gear in the first experimetn, telemetric version in
the second) and , in the experiment supposedly approximating more
'normal' conditions, were told to keep their eyes open during listening.
(Personally, I've been known to close mine during intense listening.)
NB, too, that the whoel thrust of OOhashi's paper is to show the
conditions under which *hypersonic* frequencies makes a difference.
Their custom-built stereo system used 'super tweeters' that could handle tje high-frequency
sound component (HFCs), means to present standard and HFC sound separately
or combined, and of course used HFC source material, resulting
in a system with 'a flat frequency response of over 100 kHz'.
He even notes that 'most of the conventional audio systems that have been used to
present sound for determining sound quality were found to be
unsuitable for this particular study."
I have to wonder, how many 'audiophile' systems and sources over the years
-- say, since the introduction of CD -- have met Oohashi's standards.
There's not much in the way of data in his paper on what is *required* in
his setup, to achieve his results, but *if* a system flat over 100kHz,
*is* a requirement, then I would guess few home systems would have mtet
the challenge until quite recently. And in that case, one wonders how
Oohashi's resutls can be extrapolated to what CDphobes have been
hearing since 1983.
Are Oohashi's results, in short, the results of rather peculiar
conditions, or do they really reflect what's going on during 'normal'
listening? This quesiotn is often asked of DBT proponents, it seems at
least a germane here.
There's lots going on in this paper, methodologically. it repays careful
reading. The paper is downloadable, btw, from the journal's website.
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
--
-S.
Steven Sullivan
How do you measure 'full emotional impact, Harry? Dont' you see how vague
such language is, for the purpsoes intended? Oohashi evaluated these
subjective parameters (necessarily arbitrary), on a 1-5 scale.:
1----------5
soft vs hard
reverberant vs percussive
instruments in balance vs instruments out of balance
comfortable to ears vs uncomfortable to ears
rich in nuance vs lacking in nuance
lower tone dominant vs higher tone dominant*
thick vs thin*
light vs heavy*
like vs dislike*
finely textured vs roughly textured*
The ones with asterisks showed NO statistically significant difference
between full range (standard plus extended range)
and high frequency range-only presentations. (he never got significant
results using *only* HFR presentation). Note especially the result
for 'like vs. dislike'. It would hypersonic content cannot be
said to influence the overall emotional stance one takes to
the presentation. Or did I lose something in translation?
Or would a different set of pairs produce different results?
Stewart Pinkerton
>There is a vast difference to listening
>to a "sound" or artifact versus doing open-end evaluation of a components
>ability to reproduce music with full emotional impact. That is the crux of
>the difference.
Is there anyone here who can translate this into English?
Midlant
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bIFub.243127$HS4.2151392@attbi_s01...
> "Harry Lavo" harry...@rcn.com wrote:
>
<snipped>
> and yet, no cable/amp proponent has ever been able to reliably
identify even their own gear
> in their own reference systems under even the most modest of
bias-controlled
> conditions.
Were they or you able to hear a difference between the amplifiers used?
You may not know "the sound" of your amp, but was there an audible
difference between the tested models?
<snipped>
> The real reason that no one has yet to show an ability to reliably
identify
> nominally competent amps and cables is because there is no audible
difference.
I agree that there may not be a big difference between $5k and up amps,
but is there an audible difference between a $1500 and a $5k amp or even
one more expensive? Would there be an audible difference between and
Adcom 555-II or 5800, McCormack DNA125 or 225, Rotel 1090, Pass Labs,
Bryston, Krell, etc? This is where the need for upgrading comes in. Do
we need to? If a $1500 amp sounds as good as a $10k amp then we can save
some $$$. If they don't, then at what point does the price come into
play into a change in sound? Where does it change from a major change
in sound to minor nuances or none at all?
Two days ago I switched out amps. I removed a McCormack DNA-125 and
replaced it with my old Adcom GFA-555II. I was surprised that not only
did I have to turn the preamp up for the higher power Adcom, but also
how thin the sound was. I've read that owners of Nelsen Pass' Aleph
series say they are thin sounding. The 555 is also one of his designs.
Could this be a trait common to his designs or is it the design of the
55 by itself?
I switched back to the McCormack. It was warmer and played louder but,
the sound was the reason for staying with the lower power McC unit. It
really was warmer sounding. This may be what some call the tubey sound
he's known for or what others call muddy and dark.
S888Wheel
<<
> >By this method, a copper bracelet might well be concluded to 'help' one's
> >arthritis. Which is fine if one wants to *believe* that, but if one wants
to
> >*assert* it as an accurate cause-and-effect chain, one can expect a fair
> >amount of
> >skepticism.
I said
<<
> Quite the opposite. If one wants to test the copper bracelet in a medical
study
> it would be used exactly as it is intended to be used only there would be a
> control group. Medical studies do things right in this way.
<<
It has not been my impression that audiophiles 'intend to use' components
in a bias-controlled fashion. In fact, the common complaint is that
imposition of such controls somehow interferes with the intended
use of such components.
Yes, that does seem to be a common complaint in audio ABX DBTs. I was simply
pointing out that in medical studies, that which is being tested is used as it
would be used in common practice. I was simply pointing out that medical
research agrees with my approach to component evaluation in that particular
regard. They use control groups with placebos. This is nothing like an ABX DBT.
Both use some sort of bias control but the tests are implemented quite
differently. I think it would be hard to argue that a medical trial that has
patients using the product being tested as it would be used in normal practice
would not be so likely to affect the results in a negative way. If ABX DBTs do
in fact affect the way in which people listen to music then you cannot assume
it has no ill effects on perception. That has to be tested to be determined.
chung
I can't even make an educated guess as to what plasticky means in the
context of audio. Nor can I make an educated guess as to what is
sufficient "air" around the instrument, and what is too much air.
>
> Chung said
>
> <<
> When you said food is spicy, we all understand what you meant, although
> how spicy obviously varies from one to another.
However, when you say the food is spicy, I can in general relate to what
you are saying. The food is spicy to you, and of course, it may be only
mildly spicy, or too spicy for me. But there's no confusion what you are
trying to say.
>
> People understand via common experiences and interest in the subject matter.
I have been an avid listener for 30 years, and I don't know what
plasticky means, no matter how hard I try.
>
> Chung said
>
> <<
> Now, when you said midband is placticky, you think you know what it
> meant, but you can't really describe it in any scientific or measureable
> terms. How in the world do you know that your definition of plasticky is
> the same as Mr. Lavo's or anyone else's?
>
> It does not matter if I can describe it in any scientific or measurable terms
> any more than it doesn't matter that the average Joe can't do the same thing
> with spicy food. How in the world do you know that what you think is spicy is
> the same as what I think is spicy?
The difference is that spicy has a common meaning. The degree of
perceived spiciness can vary from one individual to another.
What's plasticky, on the other hand, has no absolute or relative meaning
to me.
If we get together and eat spicy food and
> talk about it we both have a better idea of what the other considers spicy. If
> audiophiles get together and hear a quality in the midband that they describe
> as plasticky then they have a common understanding of the description. That is
> pretty much how language works isn't it?
>
It would help if someone who uses the word plasticky define it in terms
of frequency response, signal-to-noise ratio or distortion.
> Chung said
>
> <<
> Of course, you are also correct that there are many terms used by
> audiophiles that are not quantifiable, and the problem is that there is
> no universal agreement on what it means.
>
> Did I say they weren't quantifiable? If I did I take it back. I may not be able
> to quantify what sounds plasticky to me and many others may not either but that
> doesn't mean it isn't quantifiable.
I am still waiting..., and I am not even sure that others agree with
your definition of plasticky.
>
> Chung said
>
> <<
> Tell me now, what does fast timing in a capacitor mean? How about a
> relaxed bass? And how much air is right, or can you have too much air
> around an instrument?
>
> I think the term speed is usually associated with a sense of clarity. For
> instance electrostatic speakers are often described as quick or fast. So I
> would guess it is the same quality.
Speed in a capacitor?
> I would take relaxed bass as the opposite
> of boomy one note bass one gets from the guy blasting rap in the car that can
> be heard before it can be seen.
So is relaxed bass same as tight bass, or loose bass? If one is tight,
one is usually not relaxed, but I doubt relaxed bass is the same as
loose bass (which sounds undesirable)... :)
I would suspect that one would consider a
> finger strummed acoustic bass to sound more relaxed than Chris Squire picking
> his Rickenbacker (spelling) electric bass. I suspect the right amount of "air"
> probably has a lot to do with the right amount of very high frequency
> information.
See, there we have a disagreement. When I heard "air", I thought it had
to do with the modulation of those notes, sort of like microphonics, or
it may be some kind of extended ringing. I wouldn't think of assoicating
"air" with the right amount of high frequency information at all. And
who knows what is "the right amount"?
It's loose terms like this that really hinder discussions on any
technical level. Your definition may be shared by more people, but is by
no means the commonly accepted one.
Some MC cartridges have what I would call an excessive "sense of
> air" and they also tend to have a rise in the extreme highs in their frequency
> response. Yes, you can have a sense of too much air around the instrument. Now,
> I hope you realize that no one is literally talking about quantities of air
> just as no one is talking about light levels when they talk about something
> sounding bright. What I believe is being talked about is the degree of the
> illusion of the presence of an instrument and it's immediate surroundings.
>
So you're not sure either :). What do you mean by the "immediate
surroundings" of an instrument?
Harry Lavo
> Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan ssu...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
> > >Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>snip, not relevan to this discussion<
>
> But my understanding at the point is that Harry doesn't 'believe in' the
> common conception of ABX -- that is, a test where the person must 'switch'
> between two components during the trial, using short segments of music.
> However, Oohashi's paper indicates that only 200 seconds of 'natural
> music' [gamelan] as sound stimuli are needed to replicate his results;
> his snippets were each about 3.5 minutes long. Also, the subjects *were*
> presented series of such tracks (differing only in HF content), with short
> intervals between the tracks and sessions, meaning it *wasn't* the sort
> of protracted protomonadic test where the subject listened for hours, or
> even days, at a time, to one sound and then made their report on it
> before moving on to the next sound. IN other words, it seems to me it was
> more like a standard ABX test than the 'relaxed open-ended comparison'
> Harry describes.
>
Nothing like the standard abx tests. And much more how audiophiles listen
at home when comparing equipment.
They listened to a full piece..3.5 minutes of music which after a very short
break was repeated. Then they had a 3 minute rest. Then the two 3.5 minute
pieces of music were repeated but in reverse order. During each rendition
of the music, the subjects rated the sound quality (at home they might take
notes) of what they were hearing (they didn't know what it was they were
testing, and a and b were assigned at random). Then the music was repeated
in reverse order so the full sequence went a-b-b-a. Four times in all - 14
minutes of music with 3-4 minutes of rest in the middle. And there were no
comparisons...they just rated the sound.
One difference from home (other than blind) is that only one piece of test
music was used. At home in a full open-ended evaluation, several different
pieces would be used to get at different aspects of performance...in the
Oohashi experiment they were only interested in the ultra-high frequency
response, so that is what they designed the test for.
> Then, too, the subjects were wearing EKG paraphenalia during hte
> experiments (standard gear in the first experimetn, telemetric version in
> the second) and , in the experiment supposedly approximating more
> 'normal' conditions, were told to keep their eyes open during listening.
> (Personally, I've been known to close mine during intense listening.)
>
Read more carefully. The EEG and PET scan parts of the experiment were done
separately, in a different location. The listening tests were done under
normal conditions, sitting in an easy chair, especially to reduce
psychological stress according to the authors.
>
> NB, too, that the whoel thrust of OOhashi's paper is to show the
> conditions under which *hypersonic* frequencies makes a difference.
> Their custom-built stereo system used 'super tweeters' that could handle
tje high-frequency
> sound component (HFCs), means to present standard and HFC sound separately
> or combined, and of course used HFC source material, resulting
> in a system with 'a flat frequency response of over 100 kHz'.
> He even notes that 'most of the conventional audio systems that have been
used to
> present sound for determining sound quality were found to be
> unsuitable for this particular study."
>
At the AES show their were at least three mainline mic manufactures showing
mics capable of exceeding 50khz, and at least two major monitor
manufacturers promoting monitors with response up into the 40-50 khz range.
The production end of the industry is at least paying attention. Doubtless
the home manufacturers will eventually do the same.
> I have to wonder, how many 'audiophile' systems and sources over the years
> -- say, since the introduction of CD -- have met Oohashi's standards.
> There's not much in the way of data in his paper on what is *required* in
> his setup, to achieve his results, but *if* a system flat over 100kHz,
> *is* a requirement, then I would guess few home systems would have mtet
> the challenge until quite recently. And in that case, one wonders how
> Oohashi's resutls can be extrapolated to what CDphobes have been
> hearing since 1983.
>
Well, since it is not known "how" the effect takes place, it may be that
such extended response is necessary. But consider that since the 60's hi-fi
equipment manufactures have generally looked for frequency extension up into
the 75-100khz range because they (and their customers) felt the equipment
sounded better with that kind of response (and the square wave response was
definitely better).
> Are Oohashi's results, in short, the results of rather peculiar
> conditions, or do they really reflect what's going on during 'normal'
> listening? This quesiotn is often asked of DBT proponents, it seems at
> least a germane here.
>
Agree that it is not the last word. Hopefully it is just the beginning of
systematic exploration. But it is intriquing, especially the correclation
with EEG and activated "pleasure center" PET scans and with higer-rated
listening satisfaction.
> There's lots going on in this paper, methodologically. it repays careful
> reading. The paper is downloadable, btw, from the journal's website.
>
> http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548
>
>
>
All I have wanted since I introduced this article a year ago is for it to
serve as a note of caution that not all is perhaps as cut and dried as some
here would have us believe. And to suggest to the group what a really
tightly controlled test looked like - one that better approximated home
evaluative listening and got away from forced comparison.
Harry Lavo
I don't know if they would produce different results. But I do know that
those you have not asterisked were significantly different at the 99% and
95% level, and that the same variables created elevated EEG activity in the
brains "pleasure center" as measured both by EEG and by PET scan. Thus they
correlated. The "pleasure center" is one of the centers of emotional
activity in the brain.
Not incidentally, other studies have suggested that the brain has inbred
response (pleasurable) to certain rhythm patterns and to certain harmonic
structures.
I guess that I have not made clear in my discussions here (although I've
tried) that when I talk about "emotional response" I am talking about the
instinctive human mechanisms for feeling (and especially pleasure when it
comes to music), I am not talking about Hallmark sentiment or love of a
particular piece of music. That's why I responded to Tom that one way of
evaluating equipment with his "jet flying through" was whether or not he had
an instinctive and uncontrolled urge to duck, as opposed to just listen.
The old "run from danger" mechanism, as instinctive as one can get. When
realism gets to a certain level, the body responds as to the original. With
music, it responds with emotional response akin to the real thing.
Harry Lavo
As Wheel said in another post, the language is a language of audiophiles as
a community. You don't get it listening to music alone, even for thirty
years. However, if you went to audiophile events, read audiophile magazines
such as Stereophile and the Abso!ute Sound, and others you would begin to
understand. It is a language evolved from observation...not from science.
As an engineer, if you want to translate it into engineering-ese, then you
have to work hard to try to understand what is being described, and then do
the work to figure out what engineering phenomenon it relates to.
You can't be like the doctor who says "you, have a headache? tell me, is
it in the front cerebral cortex, or is rather is it located in the adrenal
canal?" You say tell me where it hurts the most? Is it persistent or does
it come and go? Etc. Then you make an educated guess based on your
training, or you systematically set about eliminating variables until you
isolate and treat the headache.
This is a hobby forum, not an engineering forum. The hobby has evolved (and
is still evolving) a non-technical language of description...many audio
engineers have worked to translate those descriptions into progress...that's
one reason equipment generally sounds so much more accurate and transparent
today than it did 25 years ago...because audiophiles helped identify the
"colorations" and interested engineers helped engineer away the sources, or
engineer in the cure.
And, BTW, better passive components (better from a sound standpoint) were
one of those cures.
Nousaine
> My questions/comments are contained within the content of the post.
>
>"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:bIFub.243127$HS4.2151392@attbi_s01...
>> "Harry Lavo" harry...@rcn.com wrote:
>>
>
><snipped>
>
>> and yet, no cable/amp proponent has ever been able to reliably
>identify even their own gear
>> in their own reference systems under even the most modest of
>bias-controlled
>> conditions.
>
>Were they or you able to hear a difference between the amplifiers used?
>You may not know "the sound" of your amp, but was there an audible
>difference between the tested models?
No; but how would "I" be unable to "know" the sound of my own ampliifer?
Likewise no imdividual was able to reliably identify which of the 2 devices was
driving the speakers at ANY time during the 2 days of testing.
>> The real reason that no one has yet to show an ability to reliably
>identify
>> nominally competent amps and cables is because there is no audible
>difference.
>
>I agree that there may not be a big difference between $5k and up amps,
>but is there an audible difference between a $1500 and a $5k amp or even
>one more expensive? Would there be an audible difference between and
>Adcom 555-II or 5800, McCormack DNA125 or 225, Rotel 1090, Pass Labs,
>Bryston, Krell, etc? This is where the need for upgrading comes in. Do
>we need to? If a $1500 amp sounds as good as a $10k amp then we can save
>some $$$. If they don't, then at what point does the price come into
>play into a change in sound? Where does it change from a major change
>in sound to minor nuances or none at all?
In this case the 2 ampliifers used were a pair of Pass Aleph monoblocks with a
MSRP of more than $12000 a pair and a used Yamaha integrated amplifier that had
an original MSRP of approximately $500.
>
>Two days ago I switched out amps. I removed a McCormack DNA-125 and
>replaced it with my old Adcom GFA-555II. I was surprised that not only
>did I have to turn the preamp up for the higher power Adcom, but also
>how thin the sound was.
Input sensitivey is NOT a sound quality issue.
I've read that owners of Nelsen Pass' Aleph
>series say they are thin sounding. The 555 is also one of his designs.
>Could this be a trait common to his designs or is it the design of the
>55 by itself?
>I switched back to the McCormack. It was warmer and played louder but,
>the sound was the reason for staying with the lower power McC unit. It
>really was warmer sounding. This may be what some call the tubey sound
>he's known for or what others call muddy and dark.
Have a good time entertaining your self :)