"acceptable" blind testing
Norm Strong
the chaff thrown up by audiophiles who refuse to accept the results
of such testing. Here is a possible way of getting your audiophile
buddy to take a blind test:
First, run the test with the expensive component playing about 1 db
hotter than the cheaper one. This is enough to give the expensive
component an advantage that will probably give positive results.
After about 10 tries, you examine the results in front of the subject
who will no doubt break his arm patting himself on the back. This
validates the test methodology as far as the subject is concerned.
Now you have merely to repeat the test with the levels balanced
(without telling the subject, of course) and he will knock himself
out trying to get the same results he got the first time. IOW, early
success will have the same effect it does at the craps table.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com)
Seattle WA
Chris Adams
trick the subject.
BEAR
I know that you are 100% convinced that "level differences" are
sufficient to account for the differences in all DBTs - when there
actually is NO perceptable difference (ie., if the levels were
matched there would be no preference). Meaning that the devices'
measured specs are all sufficiently low that they will then sound
*identical.*
I would like to suggest that there have been many times when I and
others have listened to components under test where the levels were
NOT matched. Also, in cases where component "B" was set to be BOTH
louder and softer than component "A" by <1dB, and this was known to
be the case - but it was not known by the test subject which one was
louder.
I find that certain *qualitative* sonic effects are not swayed by
mere loudness - in fact they do not change much over a fairly
reasonable range of listening levels (within my normal SPL listening
range of about 85-95 dB average at the listening position).
I have not ever found a preference correlation in my listening that
is directly related to *loudness* alone - be it in louder than A or
softer than A comparisons!!
The one that had a particular artifact(s) that I found less positive
always sounds the same - be it made the louder or the softer one.
Perhaps you are postuating that IF two sources are made to be the
identical level at 1kHz +/- 0.1dB then it is *impossible* to tell
them apart?? (assuming reasonably sota performance - eg. a mid level
year 2001 sony CD player vs. some high-end DAC)??
However, this flies in the face of the experience where the "sound"
of a given device "tracks" as it "sounds" the same just softer as
well as just louder than the device it is being compared to.
So, I question other factors, as your results and experiences are
rather a lot different than mine.
Regards,
_-_-bear
Norm Strong wrote:
--
_-_-bearlabs
... please disregard the netzero sigfile... nothing is
really "free."
Nousaine
May I refer you to "Can You Trust Your Ears" AES Preprint 3177 which
describes a fairly large experiment (31 subjects; over 400 trials)
where subjects were asked to evaluate A/B pairs. Those were either
exactly identical or one of them was 1-dB louder than the other.
Interestingly subjects were perfectly willing to "prefer" one of two
identical presentations over 75% of the time. When loudness was
varied preference swung to the louder alternative especially when it
came as the 2nd of the two. This suggests that order of presentation
can be an important variable as well.
BEAR
> BEAR bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Norm,
> >
> >I know that you are 100% convinced that "level differences" are
> >sufficient to account for the differences in all DBTs - when there
> >actually is NO perceptable difference (ie., if the levels were
> >matched there would be no preference). Meaning that the devices'
> >measured specs are all sufficiently low that they will then sound
> >*identical.*
> >
>
<snipped>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> > _-_-bear
>
> May I refer you to "Can You Trust Your Ears" AES Preprint 3177 which
> describes a fairly large experiment (31 subjects; over 400 trials)
> where subjects were asked to evaluate A/B pairs. Those were either
> exactly identical or one of them was 1-dB louder than the other.
Sure, if you'd like to make a copy of it, and send it to me - my
address is on my website, referenced in the sig file below - I'd be
happy to comment on the specifics. Without that, I have no idea what
they were trying to test, or what they actually ended up *testing*!
:- )
>
>
> Interestingly subjects were perfectly willing to "prefer" one of two
> identical presentations over 75% of the time. When loudness was
> varied preference swung to the louder alternative especially when it
> came as the 2nd of the two. This suggests that order of presentation
> can be an important variable as well.
Subjects?? People who listen to TV sound, boom boxes, and table
radios most of the time?? Jack hammer operators, welders and
riveters, race car drivers, over-the-road truckers? Makes a big
difference, eh??
Seems to me that I recall that Edison presented his mechanical record
player at Carnegie Hall, and the reviews said that it was
indestinguishable from the live orchestra playing!! So, you've gotta
take what people write with a "grain of salt" and read between the
line to see what was really going on...
Again, I maintain that *most* (if not all) of these so-called tests
were done with equipment that I question as to its ability to
actually reproduce a high enough quality soundfield so as to discern
the sorts of differences that at least I feel are of the type that
the "debate" is about.
Needless to say, I'm skeptical about this paper on the surface.
_-_-bear
--
_-_-bearlabs
MtryCraft
>Date: 8/9/01 11:10 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <9kv58...@enews1.newsguy.com>snips
>> May I refer you to "Can You Trust Your Ears" AES Preprint 3177 which
>
>Again, I maintain that *most* (if not all) of these so-called tests
>were done with equipment that I question as to its ability to
>actually reproduce a high enough quality soundfield so as to discern
>the sorts of differences that at least I feel are of the type that
>the "debate" is about.
What else would you say since the outcome didn't meet your expectations? But, I
think you'd have a dipperent post if it did.
>Needless to say, I'm skeptical about this paper on the surface.
But of course you are. Did you even read it? Don't like what is in it? Doesn't
meet and support your position and expectations?
> _-_-bearlabs
>
Halcyon
>of such testing. Here is a possible way of getting your audiophile
>buddy to take a blind test:
Perhaps you should pick up a scientific dictionary and look up
what a 'double blind study' is and why it was developed in addition
to a 'single blind study'.
You could learn a thing or two about eliminating bias.
In addition, you could look up 'ethics' under 'scientific testing'.
cheers,
Halcyon
PS Like it has been stated a million times before, DBT listening
tests can validate whether for certain test subjects, using certain test
signals, under certain test conditions, those subjects are
able to tell the difference between how two components sound.
It does not follow from a single test (or any finite amount of tests) that
there is NO difference for anyone, for any signal, in any circumstance
even if the same equipment was used (i.e. proving the negative to the
hypothesis).
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Interestingly subjects were perfectly willing to "prefer" one of two
>identical presentations over 75% of the time. When loudness was
>varied preference swung to the louder alternative especially when it
>came as the 2nd of the two. This suggests that order of presentation
>can be an important variable as well.
Yep. This is yet another reason why switched tests (listener switched,
that is) are much more effective than sequential tests.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
BEAR
> >BEAR bear...@netzero.net
> >Date: 8/9/01 11:10 PM !!!First Boot!!!
> >Message-id: <9kv58...@enews1.newsguy.com>
> >
> >Nousaine wrote:
> >
> >> BEAR bear...@netzero.net wrote:
> snips
> >> May I refer you to "Can You Trust Your Ears" AES Preprint 3177 which
> snip.
> >
> >Again, I maintain that *most* (if not all) of these so-called tests
> >were done with equipment that I question as to its ability to
> >actually reproduce a high enough quality soundfield so as to discern
> >the sorts of differences that at least I feel are of the type that
> >the "debate" is about.
>
> What else would you say since the outcome didn't meet your expectations? But, I
> think you'd have a dipperent post if it did.
The outcome of this test meeting my expectations is not at issue -
the issue is the validity of the testing paradigm, does it actually
test the thing nominally being tested?? Is it able to test the think
being tested??
If it had or does meet my "expectations" in *that* regard, I would
not have any problem with that published paper.
Why don't you tell us what the paper said? Why don't you tell us what
the test set up was, and what the source material was?? Why don't you
tell us what sort of "subjects" were used??
We will all be waiting, since you seem to want to defend this paper's
conclusions, yes?
>
>
> >Needless to say, I'm skeptical about this paper on the surface.
>
> But of course you are. Did you even read it? Don't like what is in it? Doesn't
> meet and support your position and expectations?
I find your (above) tone to be upsetting, and mocking, without
apparent cause.
I asked Tom to send me a copy of the paper.
Do your have one? Send it to me, I have no problem discussing the
merits of the actual paper. Did *you* read the paper??
If not, perhaps it would be best to limit your comments to some
matters of fact, not your "expectation" of my "position" and/or my
"expectations". Which apparently, are your projections of your own
mind, and have little to do with what I actually said or think.
Thank you.
Nousaine
...snip....
<<I asked Tom to send me a copy of the paper.>>
No you didn't. You asked me to look up your address. And I would say that if
you were really interested in sonic differences you'd have already read it.
BEAR
Tom, would you send me a copy of the paper??
_-_-
Nousaine wrote:
You mean, "if I was actively following the topic in AES preprints..",
don't you?
_-_-bear
--
_-_-bearlabs
... please disregard the netzero sigfile... nothing is really
"free."
BEAR
(I'm submitting via Google, since my ISP has a stupid short retention
of articles, and this one needs to be threaded to the original topic)
Having said all this, and received a copy of the JAES Preprint, I was
shocked to find that the author was none other than Tom Nousaine! The
fact that he did not make this known earlier is IMHO, deceptive.
IMHO, the validity of this paper can be dismissed summarily because
of the test's hardware and software. Exactly the points that I have
been making, over and over for many years here on rahe and in other
forums. In short, Garbage In - Garbage OUT!
The ONLY statistically valid conclusion found was that listeners
*could* detect a loudness difference, by chosing the *louder*
presentation as the one preferred! This almost certainly, in my
opinion, because it was *impossible* to detect any *other*
differences due to the deficiencies in the playback equipment.
Now, let's take a look at the specific test conditions...
Part of the testing took place in time before it was likely that
either the source material or the playback equipment was *good
enough* (except in some rare systems, and then more or less by
accidental coincidence of equipment selection)to make it *possible*
to hear what we are NOW talking about.
[please remember that at that time one *could* have used a Quad ESL,
or maybe a set of Sound Lab ESLs if you really wanted low distortion
speakers, these were available - finding amps and source equal to
today's is another issue...]
Two testing methods were used, one was *cassette* & headphones. NG.
The other was a Sony D15 CD player, Parasound amp, and Dalquist DQ-10
speakers.
Even IF you will accept the first two components (I don't) the
Dalquist DQ-10 speakers were a horrible example of poor design for a
multi-way speaker system. To boot, they employed a *PIEZO ELECTRIC
HORN TWEETER* - in effect *guaranteed* to be 100% certain to have too
much distortion and ragged frequency response.
Furthermore, this second system was used with listener selected
source. Making the results effectively skewed with excessive
randomness. Most musical selections are poorly suited to making
accurate short term detections of specific non loudness differences
*IF* you have a system that will reproduce them to begin with.
THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
RAHE.
Now, Tom also provided *his* article from Stereo Review 1998 - NOT
part of the JAES preprint at all - that used another two systems.
IMHO, without dragging this separate article into this discussion too
deeply, those two systems (although more modern in vintage) were also
so flawed that they too could not under any circumstances hope to
reproduce much more than gross differences and loudness.
As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
equipment.
In short, you can analyze data, and test all you want, but if your
tests are inherently flawed then the results are *meaningless* for
the most part. To summarize in a concise way, that is what Mr.
Nousaine's tests are: meaningless.
To those who might think that I have some personal cause against Mr.
Nousaine, I don't. Nor do I have some sort of dogmatic adversarial
stance against ABX/DBT or other scientific test, I don't. IF this
test had been *reasonable* in it's "paradigm" I'd be most interested
in it, and receptive to the results. However, these are bordering
upon absurdity in as much as they do not in any way test using a SOTA
high-end system, nor (apparently) do they test using resonable test
source material or appropriate selection of test subjects (this last
is another matter entirely, but I throw it out for your
consideration).
As a result, conclusions that are drawn from flawed tests are flawed
and limited in their meaning (if they have any at all).
I'd like to also mention, that just because something is published,
it does not mean that it is either correct or meaningful. Quoting a
published paper doesn't in and of itself mean that your conclusions,
or that paper's conclusions are any more valid.
Never-the-less, I'd like to thank Tom for sending me a copy of these
things and giving me an opportunity to review them for myself and
report back to rahe.
Regards,
_-_-bear
http://bearlabsUSA.com
Mkuller
>tests are inherently flawed then the results are *meaningless* for
>the most part. To summarize in a concise way, that is what Mr.
>Nousaine's tests are: meaningless.
>
>As a result, conclusions that are drawn from flawed tests are flawed
>and limited in their meaning (if they have any at all).
>
>I'd like to also mention, that just because something is published,
>it does not mean that it is either correct or meaningful. Quoting a
>published paper doesn't in and of itself mean that your conclusions,
>or that paper's conclusions are any more valid.
>
Thanks Randy, your conclusions appear to be justified. I believe
this is the type of "peer review" that Pinkerton mentioned.
Regards,
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
>THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
>REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
>RAHE.
Randy, this is a bullshit claim, because there is no technical
criterion that has been shown to be capable of resolving such
differences.
>As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
>"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
>equipment.
Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
alter these results?
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
BEAR
> bear...@netzero.net (BEAR) writes:
>
> >THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
> >REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
> >RAHE.
>
> Randy, this is a bullshit claim, because there is no technical
> criterion that has been shown to be capable of resolving such
> differences.
I am surprised that the esteemed moderators permitted this post,
since it contains profanity...
On to your complaint... you have reversed what I said and so changed
the meaning. It is clear and self-evident that as one goes down in
terms of technical performance from SOTA that at some point that
degradation of performance shall result in a reduction of the
audibility of certain subtle cues (when present in the source).
Otherwise you are in effect claiming that it makes *no difference*
what caliber of equipment you use.
If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
>
>
> >As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
> >"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
> >equipment.
>
> Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
> alter these results?
I do not need any evidence to show that the tests done by Mr.
Nousaine are flawed - he has provided all the evidence required. IF
the tests were done with SOTA equipment, and appropriate source
material THEN we would have to consider the results seriously. But,
as it stands, these results show nothing of significance beyond
confirming that with badly reproduced music that the main differences
are that of level. Upon this we can all agree. We can NOT then
generalize and say that there are *no other audible differences which
can be heard*, and identified, and reported using ABX/DBT means or
similar "tests" AND *SOTA* equipment today. (and appropriate source
material)
My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment. SO, there is no
way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
No one *knows* what would happen if the tests were designed better.
Anyone who wants to *$ponsor* such tests, please email me privately
and let's see what can be done. (the sound of computers being
switched off - very zen...)
Stew, you're blowing smoke, and I can not say where it is coming
from.
--
_-_-bearlabs
out...@city-net.com
not wire is that the test gear was not sota, what ever that is. Two kinds
of test results speak against that belief. In cases where the same set of
gear was being tested against itself, great differences were reported to
be heard with gear at different price levels; assuming sotf has something
to do with price. In the case of amps, a reported sotf, pass labs, could
not be distinguished from a yamaha integrated. Of course, in the latter
case at least, that final fall back tactic will be evoked again, the other
gear was not ofthe ... But wait, the gear was that of a golden ear dealer
with his "reference" system. Of course instead of using this last fall
back tactic, those who claim to hear great differences between wire should
do their own test using what they claim sotf, we still don't know what
that is. Do we expect this to happen any time soon? Would anyone ever
jeopardize by test one's last fall back tactic when they don't have to do
so? Sure, just pick another final tactic, ie. it is too stressful, the
test gear mucks up results, pick your favorite one or invent a new one.
Nousaine
Actually the equipment used highlights the results. It was very important that
there were no acoustical differences (other than controlled level changes)
between the A and B samples. Yet subjects reported differences 76% of the time
when the presentations were EXACTLY THE SAME.
Audiophiles didn't differ from consumers in this respect. And not one subject
complained about the equipment blocking their perceptions.
Randy's decrying the equipment used simply makes the results appear in
boldface. There were ZERO differences in the equal loudness presentations, yet
people were srtongly predisposed to report there were.
Furthermore it is also interesting that no comments on the scoresheets
mentioned loudness as a differential mechanism although it was the ONLY thing
that ever changed.
Nousaine
You completely miss the point. Those experiments highlight the case that even
experienced audiophiles will report precisely identical sound presentations as
being different about 3/4 of the time. The fact you believe the equipment
lacked sufficient resolution to disclose any possible differences simply makes
the case more strongly. There were no audible differences other than level.
The experiements simply illustrate and quantify a strong expectation bias
common to humans.
My hypothesis is that more than 3/4 of the reported differences by audiophiles
are nothing more than expectation bias and that most of the others are simply
level dependent phenomenon. True differences related to acoustical phenomena
have all been well-documented in the research.
Steven Sullivan
: nh...@aol.com (Norm Strong) wrote in <9kp3u...@enews1.newsguy.com>:
: cheers,
: Halcyon
But it *does* follow that from a large enough number of tests, one can
conclude that there is *unlikely* to be any perceptible difference between
signals. By the same token all scientific facts can be rendered int he
rhetoric of probability. Yet we don't need to say that the sun us *most
likely* composed of hot, incandescent gas, or that evolution *probably*
occurred, do we, even though that's the more rigorous way of saying it?
We have enough evidence to simply state them as facts.
--
-S.
I knew 2 dumasses like urselfs would respond this way - M. Warburton
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> bear...@netzero.net (BEAR) writes:
>>
>> >THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
>> >REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
>> >RAHE.
>>
>> Randy, this is a bullshit claim, because there is no technical
>> criterion that has been shown to be capable of resolving such
>> differences.
>
>I am surprised that the esteemed moderators permitted this post,
>since it contains profanity...
Nope, just ordure, but *you* put that there............
>On to your complaint... you have reversed what I said and so changed
>the meaning. It is clear and self-evident that as one goes down in
>terms of technical performance from SOTA that at some point that
>degradation of performance shall result in a reduction of the
>audibility of certain subtle cues (when present in the source).
>
>Otherwise you are in effect claiming that it makes *no difference*
>what caliber of equipment you use.
Talking of misreading..........
I stated that there is no technical criterion which can be associated
with hearing subtle sonic differences. You are making a baseless claim
that 'THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE'. I
say that this is purest cow slurry because it's most certainly *not*
clear that any particular system can resolve differences where another
cannot, unless you choose a really defective piece of kit.
You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you don't
*define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
*puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
>If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
>which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
>please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
Oh, we'd all like to know, but you claim it exists anyway, Randy? Just
what do *you* mean by SOTA technical performance? How *exactly* does
this differe from mediocre performance?
Could it be that there's *no such thing* as the sliding scale of
mediocrity you claim, and this is just another whine about how if we
can't hear differences between Cardas Golden Cross and zipcord, that
means we don't have a good enough system? Sheesh!
>I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
>much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
>debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
>DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
>
>Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
Who knows? Just because a particular speaker doesn't sound good in an
overall sense, doesn't mean that it can't resolve fine detail. Now, if
you were talking about some of those old Bextrene-coned jobs where the
soundstage collapses at low-level, you might have a point, but in
terms of what one might call 'micr-resolution', absolutely not.
OTOH, I can hear 'further into the mix' with my Apogees than with any
other speaker I've owned, but I don't think this has much to do with
the kind of difference you are claiming above.
>> >As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
>> >"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
>> >equipment.
>>
>> Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
>> alter these results?
>
>I do not need any evidence to show that the tests done by Mr.
>Nousaine are flawed - he has provided all the evidence required.
What, you mean he didn't come up with answers which support your
baseless claims? How sad.......
> IF
>the tests were done with SOTA equipment, and appropriate source
>material THEN we would have to consider the results seriously.
And *your* results from such a system are? Since you seem to like my
Apogees, would you accept assurances from *me* that 'designer' cables
sound just like zipcord? I suspect not.........
> But,
>as it stands, these results show nothing of significance beyond
>confirming that with badly reproduced music that the main differences
>are that of level. Upon this we can all agree. We can NOT then
>generalize and say that there are *no other audible differences which
>can be heard*, and identified, and reported using ABX/DBT means or
>similar "tests" AND *SOTA* equipment today. (and appropriate source
>material)
Well hey, I don't know of any equipment which *significantly* improves
on what I'm using (otherwise I'd use it, wouldn't I?), and I broadly
agree with Tom.
>My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
>sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment.
Hey Randy, instead of all this vague hand-waving, why don't you define
SOTA equipment for us, then someone can check if they meet your
exalted criteria, whatever they might turn out to be.
>SO, there is no
>way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
>as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
>No one *knows* what would happen if the tests were designed better.
Actyually, yes we do, you are just blowing smoke and producing the
usual baseless whine about 'SOTA' gear which you don't define.
>Anyone who wants to *$ponsor* such tests, please email me privately
>and let's see what can be done. (the sound of computers being
>switched off - very zen...)
>
>Stew, you're blowing smoke, and I can not say where it is coming
>from.
See above, and let's see *you* produce a *definition*, rather than
just whine about how everyone else's gear must be inferior, otherwise
*of course* we could all hear how wonderful are those magical mystical
'high end' cables.
auplater
> bear...@netzero.net wrote:
big bs snip
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > _-_-bear
> > http://bearlabsUSA.com
>
> You completely miss the point. Those experiments highlight the case that even
> experienced audiophiles will report precisely identical sound presentations as
> being different about 3/4 of the time. The fact you believe the equipment
> lacked sufficient resolution to disclose any possible differences simply makes
> the case more strongly. There were no audible differences other than level.
>
> The experiements simply illustrate and quantify a strong expectation bias
> common to humans.
>
> My hypothesis is that more than 3/4 of the reported differences by audiophiles
> are nothing more than expectation bias and that most of the others are simply
> level dependent phenomenon. True differences related to acoustical phenomena
> have all been well-documented in the research.
I don't think Randy missed the point at all. His predilection with
"you can't hear what i'm talking about, so either you're deaf, your
equipment is junk, or you're one of those 'objectivist'", comes
through loud and clear in every post. Apparently, only BEARlabs
equipment has the cohones to produce results consistent with BEARlabs
evaluation criteria; hence the no-cost advertisement-nauseum
continuum so often criticized of some other respected manufacturers'
posts runs rampant.
John Lichtenberger
Arny Krueger
news:9m0k5...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> IMHO, the validity of this paper can be dismissed summarily because
> of the test's hardware and software. Exactly the points that I have
> been making, over and over for many years here on rahe and in other
> forums. In short, Garbage In - Garbage OUT!
This once again raises the issue of the quality of associated
components in listening tests.
By my count there can be up to 15 different audio components that are
involved in a listening test:
15 Potential Sources of Confounding Errors In An Audition Of A High
Fidelity Component
1. Digital player,
2 Preamp,
3 Power amplifier,
4. Interconnects,
5. loudspeaker cables,
6. loudspeaker,
7. Switching apparatus,
8. Listening room,
9. Listener's ears,
10. Choice of music played
11. Recording room,
12. Microphones,
13. Microphone preamp,
14. Mixing console, and
15. Digital recorder.
In the past, discussions of these components have gone something like
this:
Person with who believes audible differences abound says:
"The validity of this paper can be dismissed summarily because of the
test's hardware and software."
Person with so-called scientific viewpoint says:
"Well then what hardware and software would suffice"
Person with who believes audible differences abound says:
"Anything that is good enough to cause you to hear differences".
Obviously, this is circular logic. The means of establishing that the
test's hardware and software suffice must have some degree of
independence from the test itself.
Actually, coming up with some independent means for establishing that
the test's hardware and software suffice has been done, in public
sources, at least twice.
One is an applicable international technical standards organizations
publication ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1. You can find out more about
this document at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-r/rec/bs/1116-1.html .
The approximate cost of this 26 page document in MS Word or PDF
format is $12.00 US as of 10/1/2000. Delivery by email takes less
than 30 minutes ARO. This standard publication generally relies on
objective technical testing to determine that the test's hardware and
software suffice. This standard is generally achievable except for
its specifications for the listening room. It does provide standards
for the listeners that can be traced to an objective standard.
Another is posted at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm , and
is based on what I labeled the "believers" standard, above. It
accepts "Anything that is good enough to cause you to hear (certain,
specific and calibrated) differences". The PCABX standard is
composed of a number of musical selections with known amounts of
various kinds of distortion, provided in known, calibrated, and
decreasing amounts. Since the means for testing the listening
environment have been calibrated by independent, objective means,
circular logic is avoided. This standard is generally but not
universally achievable.
BEAR
> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> bear...@netzero.net (BEAR) writes:
> >>
> >> >THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
> >> >REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
> >> >RAHE.
> >>
> >> Randy, this is a bullshit claim, because there is no technical
> >> criterion that has been shown to be capable of resolving such
> >> differences.
> >
> >I am surprised that the esteemed moderators permitted this post,
> >since it contains profanity...
>
> Nope, just ordure, but *you* put that there............
If there is any *merde* coming forth, it is likely British in origin
as far as you're concerned... mon ami!
> >On to your complaint... you have reversed what I said and so changed
> >the meaning. It is clear and self-evident that as one goes down in
> >terms of technical performance from SOTA that at some point that
> >degradation of performance shall result in a reduction of the
> >audibility of certain subtle cues (when present in the source).
> >
> >Otherwise you are in effect claiming that it makes *no difference*
> >what caliber of equipment you use.
>
> Talking of misreading..........
>
> I stated that there is no technical criterion which can be associated
> with hearing subtle sonic differences. You are making a baseless claim
> that 'THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE'. I
> say that this is purest cow slurry because it's most certainly *not*
> clear that any particular system can resolve differences where another
> cannot, unless you choose a really defective piece of kit.
I claim that a Dalquist DQ-10 is clearly a defective "piece of kit."
This, notwithstanding the commercial sucess it found. Compared to
even a Dunlavy speaker it is a mess technically. Case closed.
> You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you don't
> *define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
> *puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
> since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
Right, why don't YOU state what technical specs are sufficient, such
that improvments will NOT yield an audible change?? Which, is what
you and Mr. Nousaine are claiming?
I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
comes to..."
That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
> >If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
> >which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
> >please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
>
> Oh, we'd all like to know, but you claim it exists anyway, Randy? Just
> what do *you* mean by SOTA technical performance? How *exactly* does
> this differe from mediocre performance?
Simple, with mediocre performance all the tests you do show that the
ONLY thing that listeners can clearly discern *is* loudness
differences across the entire spectrum and of a rather gross nature.
> Could it be that there's *no such thing* as the sliding scale of
> mediocrity you claim, and this is just another whine about how if we
> can't hear differences between Cardas Golden Cross and zipcord, that
> means we don't have a good enough system? Sheesh!
Perhaps. Dunno what you can hear or not.
IF as you claim, there is no sliding scale of mediocrity, then why
buy anything BUT a Sony *rack system* to listen to?? Your comment
below about YOUR speakers shows that you don't believe your own
argument!!
> >I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
> >much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
> >debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
> >DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
> >
> >Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
>
> Who knows? Just because a particular speaker doesn't sound good in an
> overall sense, doesn't mean that it can't resolve fine detail.
Yes it does. Although the tweeter and YOUR high frequency response
makes for most of the "detail" that you think you are hearing.
> Now, if
> you were talking about some of those old Bextrene-coned jobs where the
> soundstage collapses at low-level, you might have a point, but in
> terms of what one might call 'micr-resolution', absolutely not.
>
> OTOH, I can hear 'further into the mix' with my Apogees than with any
> other speaker I've owned, but I don't think this has much to do with
> the kind of difference you are claiming above.
>
> >> >As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
> >> >"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
> >> >equipment.
> >>
> >> Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
> >> alter these results?
> >
> >I do not need any evidence to show that the tests done by Mr.
> >Nousaine are flawed - he has provided all the evidence required.
>
> What, you mean he didn't come up with answers which support your
> baseless claims? How sad.......
>
> > IF
> >the tests were done with SOTA equipment, and appropriate source
> >material THEN we would have to consider the results seriously.
>
> And *your* results from such a system are? Since you seem to like my
> Apogees, would you accept assurances from *me* that 'designer' cables
> sound just like zipcord? I suspect not.........
Actually, I've told you several times on this newsgroup that your
beloved Apogees are actually a flawed design with out of phase
components (large ones) on the surface of the bass panels, and
standing waves on the ribbons - as well as some question as to the
linearity of the ribbons in terms of the flux in the gap being less
than linear with excursion - but never mind those technical details,
eh?
> > But,
> >as it stands, these results show nothing of significance beyond
> >confirming that with badly reproduced music that the main differences
> >are that of level. Upon this we can all agree. We can NOT then
> >generalize and say that there are *no other audible differences which
> >can be heard*, and identified, and reported using ABX/DBT means or
> >similar "tests" AND *SOTA* equipment today. (and appropriate source
> >material)
>
> Well hey, I don't know of any equipment which *significantly* improves
> on what I'm using (otherwise I'd use it, wouldn't I?), and I broadly
> agree with Tom.
Actually, I think not, Stew. I think that your positions tend to be
dogmatic and close minded in large part. There are quite a few
speakers out there that are demonstrably and measurably better than
those Apogees, and several amps that are similarly better than your
beloved Krells. Now you know that there is better gear, so go buy
some. Then get back to us.
> >My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
> >sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment.
>
> Hey Randy, instead of all this vague hand-waving, why don't you define
> SOTA equipment for us, then someone can check if they meet your
> exalted criteria, whatever they might turn out to be.
Just did - get to work.
> >SO, there is no
> >way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
> >as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
>
> It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
> there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
> merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
Sorry, I am not in the snake oil business - I make ZERO claims of the
sort that you allude to. Please do NOT lump me, or my position in
with anyone else's - thank you.
No, I am sorry, I posted a comment on THIS TEST by Tom, not something
else. The published tests have been used to GENERALIZE to a point of
view about the audibility of what are admittedly "lower order"
effects - saying that a) they do not and can not exist, and b) that
since they are inaudible, (a conclusion not warranted on a
generalized basis) that "everything sounds the same" (sort of).
> >No one *knows* what would happen if the tests were designed better.
>
> Actyually, yes we do, you are just blowing smoke and producing the
> usual baseless whine about 'SOTA' gear which you don't define.
Now, defined, get to work.
> >Anyone who wants to *$ponsor* such tests, please email me privately
> >and let's see what can be done. (the sound of computers being
> >switched off - very zen...)
> >
> >Stew, you're blowing smoke, and I can not say where it is coming
> >from.
>
> See above, and let's see *you* produce a *definition*, rather than
> just whine about how everyone else's gear must be inferior, otherwise
> *of course* we could all hear how wonderful are those magical mystical
> 'high end' cables.
More merde - and I note that you spout regularly on rao, so I tend to
think that you are enjoying debating rather than really thinking
about these issues.
--
_-_-bearlabs
"engineering is an approximation of behavior in the real
world..." <--- just for Stew!
David Dranove
I should point out that I am a professor, that I regularly publish
statistical, and that I sit on the editorial boards of four highly
regarded academic journals that routinely reject 90 percent of the
submissions due to poor research methods. I hope you guys can put up
with some academic sounding stuff. Please bear with me -- it might
prove helpful.
From your postings, it appears that several factors affect how
individuals perceive the performance of a given component in a system:
- the objective quality of the component (this is what we are keen to
measure)
- The effects of other components in the system on the overall sound.
This is what BEAR et al. have identified. Statisticians say this
introduces an "error term" or "noise term" into the statistical model.
- The subjectivity of the listener. This is what Noussaine et al have
identified. This is another form of error in the model.
Now suppose that we do ten blinded comparisons of two components, and we
give a score of -1 if the listener favors the first component, 1 if he
favors the second, and 0 if he is indifferent. Thus, our data for ten
trials might look like this:
0 , 1, -1, 1, 0, 1, -1, -1, 0 ,1
To determine which component is preferred, we compute the mean and see
if it is positive or negative. This is not enough. In the above
example, the mean is .1. But we would be hard pressed to conclude that
the first component is inferior. Such a small mean could be obtained
even if there is no difference between components (or we used the same
component) merely due to the presence of errors and the resulting impact
of random chance.
The key to interpreting the results, and to reconciling all of your
arguments, is to understand the statistical properties of the mean.
The mean is measured more precisely -- and provides a better indicator
of the quality of the components -- when the errors are small. If the
errors are large, it will be difficult to come up with a reliable
measure of the relative quality of the components.
What to do? Larger samples always help. But to determine how large
the sample needs to be, it is necessary to know the magnitudes of the
errors. Noussaine et al. suggest that the listener error is huge, even
among audiophiles. Bear et al suggest that unless one uses SOTA
equipment, the system error is huge. The bottom line is that there is
no way to know how big the sample needs to be to detect the kinds of
differences that Bear et al. believe exist. Moreover, even if
differences do exist, a large fraction of listeners (though generally
less than 50 percent) will report preferring the objectively inferior
system, merely due to the "errors" described above.
One possible solution: Conduct a study in which one compares one signal
against a digitally degraded version of the same signal, but otherwise
keeps the equipment identical. Now we have an objective difference in
quality. The question: How large does the sample have to be for
listeners to report statistically meaningful preferences for the better
signal?
David Dranove
Northwestern University
Nousaine
Thanks for the interesting reply and perspective. It's interesting that your
last suggestion closely describes the process used to quantify the transparency
of data reduction schemes (DD, DTS, Mp3, etc.)
As for "system noise" rest assured any system that produces null results for
Randy's claims will not be qualified. It's intersting that folks like Randy
seem to hear unverified effects easily as long as the answers are known in
advance.
BEAR
> bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>
> >
> >nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
> >news:<9l7lgd$2dh$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
> >> BEAR bearlabs wrote:
> >>
> >> ...snip....
> >>
> >> <<I asked Tom to send me a copy of the paper.>>
> >>
> >> No you didn't. You asked me to look up your address. And I would say that
> >if
> >> you were really interested in sonic differences you'd have already read it.
> >
> >(I'm submitting via Google, since my ISP has a stupid short retention
> >of articles, and this one needs to be threaded to the original topic)
> >
> >Having said all this, and received a copy of the JAES Preprint, I was
> >shocked to find that the author was none other than Tom Nousaine! The
> >fact that he did not make this known earlier is IMHO, deceptive.
> >
> >
<snip>
>
> >
> >Never-the-less, I'd like to thank Tom for sending me a copy of these
> >things and giving me an opportunity to review them for myself and
> >report back to rahe.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > _-_-bear
> > http://bearlabsUSA.com
>
> You completely miss the point. Those experiments highlight the case that even
> experienced audiophiles will report precisely identical sound presentations as
> being different about 3/4 of the time. The fact you believe the equipment
> lacked sufficient resolution to disclose any possible differences simply makes
> the case more strongly. There were no audible differences other than level.
That's the conclusion that you draw.
I do not agree with your conclusion. We agree on the test results.
If you test people to see if they see a "difference" and you show
them the same thing, I think you'll find that you get the same
results as you got.
Try it in another field besides hearing... or check the literature on
it? Betcha I'm pretty close to being spot on here...
> The experiements simply illustrate and quantify a strong expectation bias
> common to humans.
Exactly.
Which is why when the gear does NOT support the possibility of the
perception of *other effects* (read sonic differences) you can not
test for them!
Your tests showed NOTHING about the issue of the audibility of
anything other than loudness differences, and/or the results of
testing people when NO difference is presented.
> My hypothesis is that more than 3/4 of the reported differences by audiophiles
> are nothing more than expectation bias and that most of the others are simply
> level dependent phenomenon. True differences related to acoustical phenomena
> have all been well-documented in the research.
Exactly, so what is the basis for your lengthy conclusions,
provocative titles, and the PRESUMPTION built into your verbiage
about what you are testing: " So far, no one has ever demonstrated
scientifically that... has the slightest effect on sound quality...
the results... duplicated time and again..."??? (the quote from the
Stereo Review mag June 98) Plus you imply strongly, if not saying it
outright, by setting up the article as "tweak vs. geek" systems that
there IS NO DIFFERENCE in performance between *any* two systems that
are somehow (not defined by you) "good."
You give the appearance of having made a scientific test that some
how backs up your statement about "scientific tests" having not shown
that "tweak" or amplifiers (not clipped) can or do sound different.
Indeed your conclusions in both the 1997 and 1998 Stereo Review
articles clearly state your opinion in this regard. The JAES preprint
stops slightly short of making this conclusion outright but clearly
is worded as to strongly hint as much.
The fact is that your test(s) do NOTHING to support the clearly
implied condemnation of "tweaks" and of (to lump it all together)
"high-end equipment."
I have no problem with the tests or the test results, *as long as
they are kept in their proper and reasonable (restricted)
perspective.*
These tests can NOT be generalized into having a meaning beyond what
they actually tested - which in terms of what is or is NOT actually
audible vis-a-vis high end gear was NOT tested at all.
So, I can only conclude that the articles in Stereo Review were
intended to mislead and deceive the readers - especially those who do
not or did not read very carefully and critically, separating the
facts from the opinions and conclusions of the author. Intentional
or not, this is what they did, IMHO.
--
_-_-bearlabs
Nousaine
.....snip........> You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you
don't
>> *define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
>> *puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
>> since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
>
>Right, why don't YOU state what technical specs are sufficient, such
>that improvments will NOT yield an audible change?? Which, is what
>you and Mr. Nousaine are claiming?
>
>I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
>Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>comes to..."
>That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
Wow. A tough standard. Where can I get one of these speakers?
BEAR
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >
> >bear...@netzero.net (BEAR) writes:
> >
> >>THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE OF
> >>REPRODUCING THE TYPES OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE BEING DEBATED TODAY ON
> >>RAHE.
> >
> >Randy, this is a bullshit claim, because there is no technical
> >criterion that has been shown to be capable of resolving such
> >differences.
> >
> >>As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
> >>"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
> >>equipment.
> >
> >Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
> >alter these results?
>
> Actually the equipment used highlights the results. It was very important that
> there were no acoustical differences (other than controlled level changes)
> between the A and B samples. Yet subjects reported differences 76% of the time
> when the presentations were EXACTLY THE SAME.
Sounds like they may have been confused 76% of the time?
That is a possibility, yes?
> Audiophiles didn't differ from consumers in this respect. And not one subject
> complained about the equipment blocking their perceptions.
Of course not, they were not give this option! Once they agreed to
the test, the test was all that they were permitted to consider -
this is implicit in any test situation. So, this argument is moot.
> Randy's decrying the equipment used simply makes the results appear in
> boldface. There were ZERO differences in the equal loudness presentations, yet
> people were srtongly predisposed to report there were.
I agree with the results of these tests being valid. It is clear that
people's perceptions will vary due to physical and psychological
reasons from presentation to presentation. This is especially true
when *nothing changes.*
You can test this idea without too much trouble.
> Furthermore it is also interesting that no comments on the scoresheets
> mentioned loudness as a differential mechanism although it was the ONLY thing
> that ever changed.
The perception of loudness changing, especially when it is a small
amount is known, a priori, to be a difficult thing to identify - it
becomes all the more difficult when the source material is not well
suited to this sort of identification. My comments stand, the results
of these tests can NOT be generalized into a broader theory about
what is or is not actually audible. It does show that for these test
conditions, loudness was the primary factor in terms of making a
preference, that is all.
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:9m0k5...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> > IMHO, the validity of this paper can be dismissed summarily because
> > of the test's hardware and software. Exactly the points that I have
> > been making, over and over for many years here on rahe and in other
> > forums. In short, Garbage In - Garbage OUT!
>
> This once again raises the issue of the quality of associated
> components in listening tests.
Indeed it does - but this was only ONE point of issue with Tom's tests.
> By my count there can be up to 15 different audio components that are
> involved in a listening test:
<snip>
> Obviously, this is circular logic. The means of establishing that the
> test's hardware and software suffice must have some degree of
> independence from the test itself.
>
> Actually, coming up with some independent means for establishing that
> the test's hardware and software suffice has been done, in public
> sources, at least twice.
>
> One is an applicable international technical standards organizations
> publication ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1. You can find out more about
> this document at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-r/rec/bs/1116-1.html .
> The approximate cost of this 26 page document in MS Word or PDF
> format is $12.00 US as of 10/1/2000. Delivery by email takes less
> than 30 minutes ARO. This standard publication generally relies on
> objective technical testing to determine that the test's hardware and
> software suffice. This standard is generally achievable except for
> its specifications for the listening room. It does provide standards
> for the listeners that can be traced to an objective standard.
Dunno about this... haven't read it. Could be interesting. Anyone got a
copy and can tell us the upshot??
>
>
> Another is posted at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm , and
> is based on what I labeled the "believers" standard, above. It
> accepts "Anything that is good enough to cause you to hear (certain,
> specific and calibrated) differences".
Here's in part what Arny finds acceptable - from his website:
(Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96" or
Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card, good Pioneer, Kenwood,
equivalent or finer stereo receiver or separate components with
digital input (i.e., a Dolby Digital receiver) and speakers equal or
better to the KEF Q15's, NHT S1's, or competitive speakers from Polk,
Paradigm or PSB and other manufacturers of better loudspeakers.
Operate in pure stereo mode (no surround).
BaaaaaaP!!
Not in my book. This is mid-fi/entry level high-end stuff, and is
completely less than SOTA.
With this gear it is not surprising to me at all that there is a big
differential between what some people report to hear and the
published tests.
I gave my specs for SOTA earlier in the thread...
> The PCABX standard is
> composed of a number of musical selections with known amounts of
> various kinds of distortion, provided in known, calibrated, and
> decreasing amounts. Since the means for testing the listening
> environment have been calibrated by independent, objective means,
> circular logic is avoided. This standard is generally but not
> universally achievable.
Upon this, I can not comment - I've visited Arny's site several times
and have been baffled as to what it all means... or why it should or
could work. Perhaps someone here on rahe can email me privately and
explain it to me, I'm either not smart enough to figure it out, or
something...
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> Nousaine wrote:
>
> > bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>
> big bs snip
>
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > > _-_-bear
> > > http://bearlabsUSA.com
> >
> > You completely miss the point. Those experiments highlight the case that even
> > experienced audiophiles will report precisely identical sound presentations as
> > being different about 3/4 of the time. The fact you believe the equipment
> > lacked sufficient resolution to disclose any possible differences simply makes
> > the case more strongly. There were no audible differences other than level.
> >
> > The experiements simply illustrate and quantify a strong expectation bias
> > common to humans.
> >
> > My hypothesis is that more than 3/4 of the reported differences by audiophiles
> > are nothing more than expectation bias and that most of the others are simply
> > level dependent phenomenon. True differences related to acoustical phenomena
> > have all been well-documented in the research.
>
> I don't think Randy missed the point at all. His predilection with
> "you can't hear what i'm talking about, so either you're deaf, your
> equipment is junk, or you're one of those 'objectivist'", comes
> through loud and clear in every post.
Apparently, you prefer to draw unwarranted conclusions about all
sorts of things?
And, surprise, I'm not a 'subjectivist' at all - nor do I criticise
'objectivists' for the sake of criticism. If you read carefully,
you'll note that there are a whole bunch of posts by your loyal
'objectivist' minions that I have either supported, or said nothing
against, since they are correct. But, I'm not going along with
conclusions based upon bad tests, poor measurements, flawed test
paradigms, or the like. Are you??
> Apparently, only BEARlabs
> equipment has the cohones to produce results consistent with BEARlabs
> evaluation criteria
More provocative nonsense.
There is a whole lot of gear out there that produces excellent
results, other than BEAR Labs gear. But, I can't help it if you are
envious of my gear, John. ; -)
> ; hence the no-cost advertisement-nauseum
> continuum so often criticized of some other respected manufacturers'
> posts runs rampant.
why not address the JAES preprint?
Nothing to say on that?
Because you know that I am correct about it, eh?
> John Lichtenberger
Utter nonsense, John.
BEAR
out...@city-net.com wrote:
> One of the last fall back tactics taken by those who believe that wire is
> not wire is that the test gear was not sota, what ever that is.
SOTA gear is the best measuring gear available today, period.
Easy to define.
[ SOTA = State Of The Art -- deb ]
> Two kinds
> of test results speak against that belief. In cases where the same set of
> gear was being tested against itself, great differences were reported to
> be heard with gear at different price levels;
The same gear can not be tested against itself when it is also at
different price levels...
> assuming sotf has something
> to do with price.
Sorry, what is "sotf" - not familliar with that one.
> In the case of amps, a reported sotf, pass labs, could
> not be distinguished from a yamaha integrated.
By whom, where? What speakers? What source material?
I can distinguish it from a Yamaha on a bench in minutes.
Can you hear that? Quite possibly, IF the speakers are not providing
so much masking distortion as to overwhelm the amp's signature!
> Of course, in the latter
> case at least, that final fall back tactic will be evoked again, the other
> gear was not ofthe ... But wait, the gear was that of a golden ear dealer
> with his "reference" system.
Never have heard a "dealer" who could set up a system worth a damn.
Believe me, I've seen and heard more systems than most, and over a
period of more than 30 years...
Let's be clear, MOST "audiophile" home systems will NOT rise to the
level close enough to SOTA so as to actually be able to *clearly*
identify many of these subtle "lower order" differences. A larger
number *may* be able to discern a *change* but that "change" is often
murky and diffuse.
The question is not that MOST people will not hear or have a system
that can discern these differences clearly, but IF these differences
even exist - AND do the tests done and published SO FAR test this
factor or are they failing to test THIS issue at all! I say the
latter - they *fail* to test this issue.
> Of course instead of using this last fall
> back tactic, those who claim to hear great differences between wire should
> do their own test using what they claim sotf, we still don't know what
> that is. Do we expect this to happen any time soon? Would anyone ever
> jeopardize by test one's last fall back tactic when they don't have to do
> so? Sure, just pick another final tactic, ie. it is too stressful, the
> test gear mucks up results, pick your favorite one or invent a new one.
Sure, no problem - open to anyone who wants to hike their butt here,
bring with them, or supply the necessary gear, money and time
required to set up and DO these tests in a statistically valid way.
You will get billing on the published journal article for your
trouble and effort. Perhaps we can even trot off to some heavy duty
acoustical test facility to do the work - IF your pockets are deep
enough. I'm game, and ready to be found wrong at any time.
(again, the sound of computers being switched off...)
Any takers?? Surely, there must be some avid rahe readers with
*discretionary income* out there??
--
_-_-bearlabs
MtryCraft
>Date: 8/23/01 4:04 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <9m39i...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>snips
>I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
>Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>comes to..."
>That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>snips
> _-_-bearlabs
snips
How close? Do you have those components and no one elses does? If
not, you are not capable of any comparisons. If you do, perhaps you
have demonstrated your theory hjat can be verified and scritinized?
Or, better yet, repeated to third parties demonstrating your claimed
abilities?
BEAR
All perfectly valid ideas...
The problem with the last suggestion is that you can assume that you
can hear a "digitally degraded signal" (Arny et al.). However this is
a false assumption, IF the degredation is such that the "degredation"
inherent in the system itself is either sufficient to mask the type
of degredation" used, or is so great that the only thing that you are
hearing is in essence a function which can be said to be: sound out =
system x source. Where the system's sound dominates.
As opposed to the exemplar, the SOTA system, where the sound out =
SOURCE x system, where system is a small fraction compared to
source.
If the limiting factor is the system itself, then changing other
parameters and then testing is meaningless for all extents and
purposes.
_-_-bear
>
>
> David Dranove
> Northwestern University
ScottW
>
> Actually the equipment used highlights the results. It was very important that
> there were no acoustical differences (other than controlled level changes)
> between the A and B samples. Yet subjects reported differences 76% of the time
> when the presentations were EXACTLY THE SAME.
Take a look at Stereophiles test results from their Hi-Fi Show in
April of '89 See Blind Listening in their archives at
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?113:3
In that test (amplifiers), John Atkinson tries to use this tendency
to declare difference where there is none to draw some interesting
conclusions.
He claims that 64.4% of listeners can correctly identify a
difference compared to only 38.3% correctly identifying same. He
calls this result way way beyond the probability of chance. He fails
to note that listeners overall replied different in 63.1% of all
trials and even responded different 61.6% of the time in same
trials. So reality is listeners got different a little more than 1
time in 100 more often than expected if randomly providing different
as a response at the rate of 63.1%
Oh, The amps used were Adcom GFA-555 against VTL 300W monoblocks,
speakers were B&W Matrix 801s. Does this meet SOTA for the times?
ScottW
Nousaine
OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest are
audible? Why haven't you? I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've given
as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my own
dime. I've gone to a wire company factory. Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
differences.' Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
Steven Sullivan
: David Dranove wrote:
: As opposed to the exemplar, the SOTA system, where the sound out =
: SOURCE x system, where system is a small fraction compared to
: source.
: If the limiting factor is the system itself, then changing other
: parameters and then testing is meaningless for all extents and
: purposes.
: _-_-bear
Randy, you know and I know that in the audiophile press "golden ears'
*don't* just claim they can hear differences between SOTA compoenents
and non-SOTA. They claim they can hear differences between *all sorts*
of levels of components. How is it that 'golden ears' can claim to hear
difference between two components where *neither* meets your definition
of SOTA -- i.e., the vast majority of comparisons?
Howard Ferstler
e.
> There is a whole lot of gear out there that produces excellent
> results, other than BEAR Labs gear. But, I can't help it if you are
> envious of my gear, John. ; -)
This must be exceptional gear, and it seems like you would
like to have some reviewers give some of it a proper once
over.
Accordingly, I would like to review some of it for The
Sensible Sound. Of course, DBT comparisons would be
involved, and the amp I would compare your amp to is a
rather old, $300 when new, AudioSource Amp One. I would use
the Dunlavy Wires and Dunlavy Cantata speakers. Or, I could
use AR Phantom 8.3 speakers or my own Allison IC-20 models.
If those are unacceptable, you can suggest some of your
favorite speakers and I will do what I can to get my editor
to get me a pair of those to both review and to use as
reference speakers when comparing your amp to the
AudioSource unit.
I also currently have an Onkyo DV-S939 DVD-A player on hand
(list $1800), and I can use that, and some of the twenty or
so DVD-A recordings I have on hand, to provide two-channel
signals. If you do not trust the preamp section of my Yamaha
DSP-A1 integrated amp, you might also send a preamp, which I
can also review. If your stuff excels, you will have quite a
gala party on your hands after the review appears.
The review will be fair, but it will involve a serious
series of DBT comparisons, with me and a number of other
individuals participating.
Your call.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> comes to..."
> That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
I assume you are talking about an amp. What brand might that
be that would achieve those specifications? Yours? Do any
others, besides yours, come up to those standards? Has
anyone reviewed that amp, in order to validate its superior
performance?
Incidentally, I would love to review such an amp, and if the
gear I have on hand to use with it is substandard, I would
like a list of what I should get to do the job to your
standards. I will see if my editor at The Sensible Sound can
get that gear sent to me to both review for itself and to
use as ancillary gear when reviewing your amp.
Of course, a DBT protocol will be the reference standard for
such a review, and the amp I would compare yours to would be
a vintage, $300 AudioSource Amp One. If your stuff is as
good as you claim, it should mop up the floor with that
cheap A-S unit.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
>> with hearing subtle sonic differences. You are making a baseless claim
>> that 'THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE'. I
>> say that this is purest cow slurry because it's most certainly *not*
>> clear that any particular system can resolve differences where another
>> cannot, unless you choose a really defective piece of kit.
>
>I claim that a Dalquist DQ-10 is clearly a defective "piece of kit."
>This, notwithstanding the commercial sucess it found. Compared to
>even a Dunlavy speaker it is a mess technically. Case closed.
Case closed? I trust that you mean simply that the prosecution
rests.....
You have in fact introduced *zero* evidence that any of the admitted
faults of the DQ-10 would prevent one noticing a *difference* among
cables, assuming of course that such a difference is in fact audible.
Sorry, case not even vaguely proven.
>> You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you don't
>> *define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
>> *puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
>> since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
>
>Right, why don't YOU state what technical specs are sufficient, such
>that improvments will NOT yield an audible change?? Which, is what
>you and Mr. Nousaine are claiming?
I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims here, Randy. *You*
claim that cable differences are audible if you have good enough
equipment, so *you* tell us what equipment is good enough, so that we
can verify your claim.
>I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
>Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>comes to..."
>That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
Actually, you now have to quote a specific device which meets your
criteria, or get off the pot. *You* claim that cables are audible, so
*you* tell us what equipment is need to hear those differences.
The above is simply a wish list, *not* a description of the state of
the art. Unless you can specify *equipment* available today that
represent your definition of 'state of the art', then you're just
blowing smoke.
>> >If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
>> >which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
>> >please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
>>
>> Oh, we'd all like to know, but you claim it exists anyway, Randy? Just
>> what do *you* mean by SOTA technical performance? How *exactly* does
>> this differ from mediocre performance?
>
>Simple, with mediocre performance all the tests you do show that the
>ONLY thing that listeners can clearly discern *is* loudness
>differences across the entire spectrum and of a rather gross nature.
Randy, you were asked to define SOTA performance. Do you have *any*
results from such equipment, or is this all just idle speculation and
misdirection?
>> Could it be that there's *no such thing* as the sliding scale of
>> mediocrity you claim, and this is just another whine about how if we
>> can't hear differences between Cardas Golden Cross and zipcord, that
>> means we don't have a good enough system? Sheesh!
>
>Perhaps. Dunno what you can hear or not.
More to the point, you're making wild claims with no evidence that
*you* can really hear any differences.
>IF as you claim, there is no sliding scale of mediocrity, then why
>buy anything BUT a Sony *rack system* to listen to?? Your comment
>below about YOUR speakers shows that you don't believe your own
>argument!!
So where is *your* evidence that *you* can hear differences?
>> >I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
>> >much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
>> >debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
>> >DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
>> >
>> >Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
>>
>> Who knows? Just because a particular speaker doesn't sound good in an
>> overall sense, doesn't mean that it can't resolve fine detail.
>
>Yes it does. Although the tweeter and YOUR high frequency response
>makes for most of the "detail" that you think you are hearing.
Evidence for your extraordinary claims?
Indeed you have, but as with all your other wild claims, we see *zero*
evidence that this affects their midband resolution. You are claiming
that cables are audible, where's your *evidence*? What gear is 'good
enough'to hear these differences that you *claim* to hear?
>> > But,
>> >as it stands, these results show nothing of significance beyond
>> >confirming that with badly reproduced music that the main differences
>> >are that of level. Upon this we can all agree. We can NOT then
>> >generalize and say that there are *no other audible differences which
>> >can be heard*, and identified, and reported using ABX/DBT means or
>> >similar "tests" AND *SOTA* equipment today. (and appropriate source
>> >material)
>>
>> Well hey, I don't know of any equipment which *significantly* improves
>> on what I'm using (otherwise I'd use it, wouldn't I?), and I broadly
>> agree with Tom.
>
>Actually, I think not, Stew. I think that your positions tend to be
>dogmatic and close minded in large part. There are quite a few
>speakers out there that are demonstrably and measurably better than
>those Apogees, and several amps that are similarly better than your
>beloved Krells. Now you know that there is better gear, so go buy
>some. Then get back to us.
I've listened to the best there is, and I don't hear cables - ever.
*You* are the guy making the extraordinary claims here Randy, not me.
I repeat, what equipment do *you* claim is adequate to hear cable
differences?
While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
>> >My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
>> >sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment.
>>
>> Hey Randy, instead of all this vague hand-waving, why don't you define
>> SOTA equipment for us, then someone can check if they meet your
>> exalted criteria, whatever they might turn out to be.
>
>Just did - get to work.
No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
>> >SO, there is no
>> >way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
>> >as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
>>
>> It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
>> there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
>> merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
>
>Sorry, I am not in the snake oil business - I make ZERO claims of the
>sort that you allude to. Please do NOT lump me, or my position in
>with anyone else's - thank you.
Actually, you are most definitely in the snake oil business. You may
disprove this by describing a complete 'SOTA' system which we may use
to verify your extraordinary claim that cables sound different.
We're waiting................................
MtryCraft
>Date: 8/23/01 10:44 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <9m410...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>
>This set of statements, is partially logical, partly illogical...
>
>out...@city-net.com wrote:
>
>> One of the last fall back tactics taken by those who believe that wire is
>> not wire is that the test gear was not sota, what ever that is.
>
>SOTA gear is the best measuring gear available today, period.
>Easy to define.
Which one component would that be. You muct have one in mind, don't
you? Is it a real component? How about all the rest? They are not
SOTA? So, then, only one component is worthy, then how can your
compare any other? But that happens every day, doesn't it.
Snip
>The same gear can not be tested against itself when it is also at
>different price levels..
What do you mean? How can one component have two prices? And why
cannot one component be tested against itself? You present it twice.
Legitimate. Or, the answers are embarrasing that people get confised
even over the same component?
snips
>Let's be clear, MOST "audiophile" home systems will NOT rise to the
>level close enough to SOTA so as to actually be able to *clearly*
>identify many of these subtle "lower order" differences. A larger
>number *may* be able to discern a *change* but that "change" is often
>murky and diffuse.
Then you dismiss all claims and no positive outcomes occurr, except
on your gear, of course.
Howard Ferstler
> OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
> under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest are
> audible? Why haven't you? I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
> in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've given
> as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
> designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my own
> dime. I've gone to a wire company factory. Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
> has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
> differences.' Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
In addition, why has Mr. Bear kept his entire operation
within a closed system, whereby none of his stuff gets
reviewed and all we have in the way of comments about its
excellence are his statements to that effect? And why is it
that virtually every speaker system used in comparisons he
does not agree with end up being speaker systems that he
claims are no good. Just what speakers out there come up to
his standards?
If his own stuff, plus those speakers, is as good as he says
it is, and his hearing is as good as he says it is, why
hasn't he gone to the trouble to do some serious evaluations
and comparisons, and then submit the results to the JAES?
Heck, he could even submit the results of his research to a
pop journal like The Sensible Sound. It would certainly make
a splash.
If he really came across with some documented proofs, I
would try to get his data into the magazine. However, they
would have to be documented thoroughly, and if he claims
differences are audible, he would have to be able to back up
those claims by having some additional people participate in
his listening sessions. Double-blind, level-matched,
quick-switch listening/comparing sessions, of course.
Preferably supervised by an outsider.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> These tests can NOT be generalized into having a meaning beyond what
> they actually tested - which in terms of what is or is NOT actually
> audible vis-a-vis high end gear was NOT tested at all.
>
> So, I can only conclude that the articles in Stereo Review were
> intended to mislead and deceive the readers - especially those who do
> not or did not read very carefully and critically, separating the
> facts from the opinions and conclusions of the author. Intentional
> or not, this is what they did, IMHO.
But he did do group tests, and within those situations he
got results that backed his contentions. You have
contentions, too, of course, and I am curious about what
kind of level-matched, quick-switch, double-blind
comparisons you have done with groups of people that prove
your opposing contention. Tom also published his results (in
both a popular and a technical journal) and I am curious
about what you are going to do about publishing some
articles that counter his findings. If you are serious about
your contentions, I believe that is what you should do.
By the way, I have done such tests, as well as some other,
sighted variants that were also level matched and involved
quick switching. I used Dunlavy Cantata speakers, Waveform
MC/MC.1 speakers, and AR Phantom 8.3 speakers, as well as my
own Allison IC-20 models, and the reference amplifier much
of the time was a Bryston unit, with the reference wires
being Dunlavy LCR Ultras. Would you say that those
components were also too limited in resolution to prove my
contention that wires sound like wires (meaning no audible
sound at all) and that amps are not much more than
appliances?
Sure, I suppose you would write off my ancillary hardware as
being, as you say, mid-fi. However, there has to be a point
where the only people who could hear differences between
upscale wires and amps would be those who used your
components, or a few other rarefied components that only you
might approve of, whatever those might be.
In addition, I am pretty sure that there are golden ears out
there who will willingly claim that they can hear
differences between wires and amps when using the stuff I
used, or the stuff that Tom Nousaine used. I believe they
would not be able to do so blind, but certainly they have
faith in such ancillary components when they compare
sighted.
In short, you basically dodge the issue by claiming that
only extremely esoteric gear that you approve of would be
able to pinpoint the differences you claim are audible. I
suppose that if somebody used your recommended gear
(whatever that might be, since you did not say what you use)
and still did not hear differences, you would come up with
some other kind of excuse.
Howard Ferstler
BEAR
Don't know, why don't you ask them?
My position is clear - please don't try to make ME responsible for
someone else's position(s), OK?
_-_-bear
BEAR
> OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
> under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest are
> audible?
No. I can not. I can and have suggested some reasons.
> Why haven't you?
Mostly time and money, and an assistant to do the controlled tests
that would be required. I am open completely to anyone, almost at any
time who wants to foot the relative small bill to do the job right,
and get part of the glory when the results (for better or for worse)
have been published. ok?
> I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
> in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've given
> as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
> designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my own
> dime. I've gone to a wire company factory.
No doubt. I don't question your efforts being well intentioned for
the most part. I question your conclusions and pronouncements.
> Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
> has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
> differences.'
First off, most of these things are measureable long before they are
audible - so that's part of the problem... most things measure
"differently." Even two identical amps actually measure differently.
For real.
So, we're not looking to hear "unmeasurable differences" at all.
We're looking to detect audible differences between gear that seems
to measure in a gross sense (you know IM,THD, flatness, freq resp,
etc., etc.) pretty much the same, or "pretty good" (you know above
the mean for all "high-end" gear - if you want to look at it as a
statistic based upon "all" gear - just an idea of how to get at
it...). You know - Rat Shack interconnect vs. BEAR Labs Silver
Lightning! Ought to sound the same. That sort of thing.
> Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
I suggested that there have been serious problems in the tests that I
have read that have been published with respect to both the equipment
selection and source material - at minimum. I thought I made this
clear enough? (...yours was no exception)
My mind is completely open to the possibility that the results of
tests that I might "approve of" might be completely contrary to my
expectations as they presently are!! In FACT, my views on the
audibility of certain things have generally started with the same
sort of convictions that you and others espouse here, but have been
confounded over time - and as the SOTA has advanced, it has become
clear to me (at least) that *something* is going on that *is*
audible, but has not yet been explained in a satisfatory way.
Something clearly more than mere expectation.
To repeat, I do NOT have a dogmatic view of this issue at all.
BEAR
> David Dranove wrote:
>
> >
> >This is a fun thread. Let me try to add some rigor to these arguments.
> >I should point out that I am a professor, that I regularly publish
>
<snip>
> we have an objective difference in
> >quality. The question: How large does the sample have to be for
> >listeners to report statistically meaningful preferences for the better
> >signal?
> >
> >David Dranove
> >Northwestern University
>
> Thanks for the interesting reply and perspective. It's interesting that your
> last suggestion closely describes the process used to quantify the transparency
> of data reduction schemes (DD, DTS, Mp3, etc.)
>
> As for "system noise" rest assured any system that produces null results for
> Randy's claims will not be qualified. It's intersting that folks like Randy
> seem to hear unverified effects easily as long as the answers are known in
> advance.
This is an assertion without basis.
This is NOT my position at all.
I demand an apology from Mr. Nousaine, unless he can substantiate
this claim.
BEAR
Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
technology comes..."
Why is that hard to comprehend??
What has been suggested so far is akin to making generalizations
about race car performance based upon the abilities of drivers and
cars from some years ago, or even today's cars & drivers, but drawn
from less than the *best* that run today! Absurd, isn't it? The
maximum performance *is* the maximum - anything less is *less*.
_-_-bear
Nousaine wrote:
--
BEAR
But as I said in the other part of this thread where you made a
similar offer, there are some other matters to be considered in order
to make this happen - and expenses.
Please email me privately, if you and your editor are extremely
serious about this, there are some things that are possible that I am
willing to do and some things that are not.
Again, I refer you to my website to preview what the Symphony No.1
Amp consists of.
_-_-bear
Howard Ferstler wrote:
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> BEAR wrote:
>
> > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > comes to..."
> > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
> I assume you are talking about an amp.
Bad assumption.
> What brand might that
> be that would achieve those specifications? Yours? Do any
> others, besides yours, come up to those standards?
Yes, there are a few that are SOTA by today's standards.
READ AGAIN: "as close as today's technology comes..."
Got it now???
> Has
> anyone reviewed that amp, in order to validate its superior
> performance?
Come here, test it.
Buy one, test it.
IF it doesn't meet its spec's I'll either find the fault and make
sure it does, or refund your money.
Have you bothered to look at my website to see what this amp is??
It's under "Amplifiers" then look at the Symphony No.1 - be sure to
click on the links within the text.
Please report back on rahe IF you know of any other amps that come up
to this build quality - the topology is a separate issue, but feel
free to discuss that too. Ok?
(hint - there are some, if you look carefully that are close...)
>
>
> Incidentally, I would love to review such an amp, and if the
> gear I have on hand to use with it is substandard, I would
> like a list of what I should get to do the job to your
> standards. I will see if my editor at The Sensible Sound can
> get that gear sent to me to both review for itself and to
> use as ancillary gear when reviewing your amp.
Sure... send me a private email, Howard.
The amp however, is custom built - and so there are costs involved
with this process, even with a potential loan.
There may be a few other requirements that need to be negotiated
privately.
>
>
> Of course, a DBT protocol will be the reference standard for
> such a review, and the amp I would compare yours to would be
> a vintage, $300 AudioSource Amp One. If your stuff is as
> good as you claim, it should mop up the floor with that
> cheap A-S unit.
Not a problem, my friend!
:- )
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
No.
Not in my opinion.
Both amps are technically flawed.
If you need more data on this, check their square wave response
either in print or on a scope for yourself. Then check their IM
specs.
If you need to know how to interpret this data, that's for another
thread. The B&W 801s are *far* from a SOTA speaker system.
This is middle level (approximately) stuff.
_-_-bear
BEAR
> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> I stated that there is no technical criterion which can be ssociated
> >> with hearing subtle sonic differences. You are making a baseless claim
> >> that 'THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE'. I
> >> say that this is purest cow slurry because it's most certainly *not*
> >> clear that any particular system can resolve differences where another
> >> cannot, unless you choose a really defective piece of kit.
> >
> >I claim that a Dalquist DQ-10 is clearly a defective "piece of kit."
> >This, notwithstanding the commercial sucess it found. Compared to
> >even a Dunlavy speaker it is a mess technically. Case closed.
>
> Case closed? I trust that you mean simply that the prosecution
> rests.....
>
> You have in fact introduced *zero* evidence that any of the admitted
> faults of the DQ-10 would prevent one noticing a *difference* among
> cables, assuming of course that such a difference is in fact audible.
>
> Sorry, case not even vaguely proven.
Nonsense.
The distortion specs for the tweeter are enough to rule out this
speaker system. IF you can't agree to that, then you'd better
re-assume the Ostrich position, Mr. Pinkerton.
> >> You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you don't
> >> *define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
> >> *puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
> >> since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
> >
> >Right, why don't YOU state what technical specs are sufficient, such
> >that improvments will NOT yield an audible change?? Which, is what
> >you and Mr. Nousaine are claiming?
>
> I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims here, Randy. *You*
> claim that cable differences are audible if you have good enough
> equipment, so *you* tell us what equipment is good enough, so that we
> can verify your claim.
I made no claims, I critqued Mr. Nousaines article, you are
attempting to use debating techniques to induce me to take a position
that I have NOT taken.
Cut the merde, Stew.
> >I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> >0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> >Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> >comes to..."
> >That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
> Actually, you now have to quote a specific device which meets your
> criteria, or get off the pot. *You* claim that cables are audible, so
> *you* tell us what equipment is need to hear those differences.
No, I made no claim. I said that Tom's tests showed NOTHING about
that subject. Right?
> The above is simply a wish list, *not* a description of the state of
> the art. Unless you can specify *equipment* available today that
> represent your definition of 'state of the art', then you're just
> blowing smoke.
Do some research, figure out which components today are SOTA for
yourself. You're smart, right?
> >> >If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
> >> >which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
> >> >please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
> >>
> >> Oh, we'd all like to know, but you claim it exists anyway, Randy? Just
> >> what do *you* mean by SOTA technical performance? How *exactly* does
> >> this differ from mediocre performance?
> >
> >Simple, with mediocre performance all the tests you do show that the
> >ONLY thing that listeners can clearly discern *is* loudness
> >differences across the entire spectrum and of a rather gross nature.
>
> Randy, you were asked to define SOTA performance. Do you have *any*
> results from such equipment, or is this all just idle speculation and
> misdirection?
>
> >> Could it be that there's *no such thing* as the sliding scale of
> >> mediocrity you claim, and this is just another whine about how if we
> >> can't hear differences between Cardas Golden Cross and zipcord, that
> >> means we don't have a good enough system? Sheesh!
> >
> >Perhaps. Dunno what you can hear or not.
>
> More to the point, you're making wild claims with no evidence that
> *you* can really hear any differences.
>
> >IF as you claim, there is no sliding scale of mediocrity, then why
> >buy anything BUT a Sony *rack system* to listen to?? Your comment
> >below about YOUR speakers shows that you don't believe your own
> >argument!!
>
> So where is *your* evidence that *you* can hear differences?
I'm deaf.
I didn't write a bogus "test" article.
I didn't draw erroneous conclusions from it.
Stick to the topic, Stew.
>
>
> >> >I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
> >> >much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
> >> >debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
> >> >DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
> >> >
> >> >Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
> >>
> >> Who knows? Just because a particular speaker doesn't sound good in an
> >> overall sense, doesn't mean that it can't resolve fine detail.
> >
> >Yes it does. Although the tweeter and YOUR high frequency response
> >makes for most of the "detail" that you think you are hearing.
>
> Evidence for your extraordinary claims?
Turn your tweet off. Duh.
SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
> While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
> my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
I'd be happy to do this in a private email, Stew, or in another
thread about the performance and design of Krell amps - please feel
free to start it. Be prepared to be taken apart.
> >> >My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
> >> >sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment.
> >>
> >> Hey Randy, instead of all this vague hand-waving, why don't you define
> >> SOTA equipment for us, then someone can check if they meet your
> >> exalted criteria, whatever they might turn out to be.
> >
> >Just did - get to work.
>
> No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
> equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
> making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
> right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
conclusions and validity. Right?
>
>
> >> >SO, there is no
> >> >way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
> >> >as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
> >>
> >> It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
> >> there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
> >> merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
> >
> >Sorry, I am not in the snake oil business - I make ZERO claims of the
> >sort that you allude to. Please do NOT lump me, or my position in
> >with anyone else's - thank you.
>
> Actually, you are most definitely in the snake oil business. You may
> disprove this by describing a complete 'SOTA' system which we may use
> to verify your extraordinary claim that cables sound different.
>
> We're waiting................................
Sorry, despite your baseless assertion Stew, I am NOT in the snake
oil business. You and some others would like to brand me that way,
but that would be a false accusation. Quite the opposite, I *love* to
measure things. : -)
--
_-_-bearlabs
"...engineering is an approximation..."
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <snip>
Obviously, I have a copy, and I'm respecting its copyright. I figure
that if you are a high-end audio person, the $12 out-of-pocket and
<30 minute wait is within your means. I have posted some excerpts of
it at www.pcabx.com.index.htm .
The upshot is that BS 1116 a document from a well-known
international standards organization that justifies subjective
testing and describes a very good environment and procedures for
doing very sensitive and reliable listening tests. It covers the
room, the equipment, and the listeners.
> > Another is posted at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm , and
> > is based on what I labeled the "believers" standard, above. It
> > accepts "Anything that is good enough to cause you to hear (certain,
> > specific and calibrated) differences".
> Here's in part what Arny finds acceptable - from his website:
> (Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96" or
> Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card, good Pioneer, Kenwood,
> equivalent or finer stereo receiver or separate components with
> digital input (i.e., a Dolby Digital receiver) and speakers equal or
> better to the KEF Q15's, NHT S1's, or competitive speakers from Polk,
> Paradigm or PSB and other manufacturers of better loudspeakers.
> Operate in pure stereo mode (no surround).
> BaaaaaaP!!
I love it when so-called "subjectivists" and people who say they
believe in judging by personal experiences are so hasty to render
absolute judgments about equipment based on brand names and
specifications, and NOT based on their personal experiences.
I also love it when people make out-of context quotes. In this case
the context is:
(Minimum) Sound Blaster Live! sound card and Monsoon 1000 speakers,
or equal or better from other manufacturers. Headphones can make a
fine alternative to loudspeakers. PCABX's technical staff recommends
the use of quality headphones such as the Sony MDR 7506.
(Adequate or Better Analog) Midiman "Audiophile 24/96" or Turtle
Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card, good Pioneer, Kenwood, equivalent or
finer stereo receiver or separate components and speakers equal or
better to the KEF Q15's, NHT S1's, or competitive speakers from Polk,
Paradigm or PSB and other manufacturers of better loudspeakers.
Operate in pure stereo mode (no surround).
(Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96" or
Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card, good Pioneer, Kenwood,
equivalent or finer stereo receiver or separate components with
digital input (i.e., a Dolby Digital receiver) and speakers equal or
better to the KEF Q15's, NHT S1's, or competitive speakers from
Polk, Paradigm or PSB and other manufacturers of better loudspeakers.
Operate in pure stereo mode (no surround).
(Professional) Midiman Delta Series, DAL CardD Deluxe or LynxONE
sound card, self-powered professional studio monitors like those
from Mackie, Event, Vergence, JBL, etc.
> Not in my book. This is mid-fi/entry level high-end stuff, and is
> completely less than SOTA.
That is what the full context says, right? It calls it "Adequate Or
Better Digital" and provides some recommended upgrades.
> With this gear it is not surprising to me at all that there is a big
> differential between what some people report to hear and the
> published tests.
You mean the part where people do hear differences?
> I gave my specs for SOTA earlier in the thread...
To cut to the chase, does your so-called SOTA system make the cut for
PCABX and ITU BS1116-1?
> > The PCABX standard is
> > composed of a number of musical selections with known amounts of
> > various kinds of distortion, provided in known, calibrated, and
> > decreasing amounts. Since the means for testing the listening
> > environment have been calibrated by independent, objective means,
> > circular logic is avoided. This standard is generally but not
> > universally achievable.
> Upon this, I can not comment - I've visited Arny's site several times
> and have been baffled as to what it all means... or why it should or
> could work.
About 1,000 people a week seem to be able to figure that out. Item
2.4 at http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm quotes a number of independent
sources that give their own (favorable) views on the matter. One of
the most elegant might be
http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/nov00/articles/pcnotes.htm .
>Perhaps someone here on rahe can email me privately and
> explain it to me, I'm either not smart enough to figure it out, or
> something...
You might want to take a look at BS 1116-1, if it's within your
budget, that is...
;-)
Halcyon
>But it *does* follow that from a large enough number of tests, one can
>conclude that there is *unlikely* to be any perceptible difference
>between signals. By the same token all scientific facts can be rendered
When enough variables have been either eliminated from the tests
conditions or taken into account within the tests (and shown in tests to
have no effect on the results).
Within these boundaries, yes, I agree completely with you.
Otherwise what we have is a hypothesis (one of possibly many).
However, I have *not* ever seen "a large numer of" *scientific* tests
proving some of the stuff that some people here claim so vehemently.
It may be that I have not looked hard enough and am willing to mend
the error of my ways if proven otherwise.
And untill that happens, scientifically open minded people might consider
staying alert to all plausible possibilities, even if measurement
techniques can't show something yet (one way or another).
In general I wish people here at RAHE would be less vehement at trying to
prove or disapprove some particular claims, when there clearly isn't
scientificlaly concluding evidence one way or another.
It's one thing to discuss/learn and another thing to try
prove one's hypothesis with all possible ways (including straw man,
weak induction, ad hominem and the like).
BTW, the above was not reference to anyone in particular, so don't take
offence. It's just a plear for us to get along :)
ObRAHETQuestion: AudioNet makes a very interesting and not so expensive
CD player (IMHO) called ART V2 with 96/24 upsampling. I wonder if anyone
has heard this beast and could comment on it (good or bad)?
Respectfully,
halcyon
PS My apologies to the moderators for illegal approval in previous
messages. Being a newcomer to RAHE I foolishly assumed that manual self-
approval was the common practise (as per several other groups).
To find human moderators at the helm of a newsnet/usenet group at this
day and age was quite of a surprise for me, albeit a very positive one.
Arny Krueger
> I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m =
145dB.
> Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> comes to..."
> That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
OK, most speaker cables and interconnects meet this spec for "SOTA".
Yet, you seem to be claiming that they are inadequate, but your spec
is adequate. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, if not
circular logic.
Howard Ferstler
>
> To both the previous posters on this subject:
>
> Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
> today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
> technology comes..."
>
> Why is that hard to comprehend??
Why not just tell us? Is it some kind of secret? I get the
impression that you are withholding this information, so
that when others do comparisons with gear that they hope is
SOTA, you can again chime in and claim that they used
substandard gear. You could almost do this indefinitely, as
various individuals try to do comparisons with what they
hope is SOTA gear, and continue to fail by your standards.
Also, I will repeat my request for some of your gear to
review for The Sensible Sound, along with information about
what ancillary gear is required for me to do a proper DBT. I
will see if I can get my editor to round some of that gear
up, but I need to know what it is, first.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > BEAR wrote:
> >
> > > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> > > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > > comes to..."
> > > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
> > I assume you are talking about an amp.
>
> Bad assumption.
Well, what is it? Speakers? You have speakers that respond
out to 250 kHz and can hit 145 dB?
Why are you being so vague? Why keep it a secret? The group
wants to know what equipment Randy Bear considers to be
SOTA. Yeah, I have seen your web site, but what else out
there can match the Bear hardware? Can anything else be
equal to what you make and sell?
> > What brand might that
> > be that would achieve those specifications? Yours? Do any
> > others, besides yours, come up to those standards?
> Yes, there are a few that are SOTA by today's standards.
>
> READ AGAIN: "as close as today's technology comes..."
>
> Got it now???
No, I do not. What I need is a brand name, so that I can get
the required items and do double-blind comparisons SOTA
style. Are you saying that the only SOTA hardware on earth
is what Randy Bear makes?
And if that is the case, we have a situation where your
comments about the sound of wires and amps when coupled to
SOTA gear becomes essentially meaningless. This is because
most audio buffs, even those who have exotic tastes and
spend on upscale gear, do not have sound systems with enough
quality to highlight the differences you say exist.
Therefore, for all intents and purposes, at least with the
vast majority of audio buffs who do not own your equipment
brands, wires and amps do indeed sound alike.
> > Has
> > anyone reviewed that amp, in order to validate its superior
> > performance?
> Come here, test it.
> Buy one, test it.
Why not submit it for a review? That is what reputable
manufacturers do when they want to get their stuff out onto
the marketplace. Also, if they are reputable, they will want
to put their stuff up against competitive brands, with those
evaluations being done by those with no vested interest in
selling those amps. You claim your amps are great, and yet
all we have for proof is your opinion. I would not consider
that kind of opinion as unbiased, no matter who had it.
> IF it doesn't meet its spec's I'll either find the fault and make
> sure it does, or refund your money.
I do not want to buy the thing. I want to review your stuff,
in order to see if your claims about it are valid. Other
manufacturers have done this. Why don't you want to do it?
Have any of your amps been reviewed by anybody except
yourself or maybe your friends? How about letting an
outsider review one of them?
> Have you bothered to look at my website to see what this amp is??
> It's under "Amplifiers" then look at the Symphony No.1 - be sure to
> click on the links within the text.
Yes, I looked at it. Very impressive. Unfortunately, all we
have in the way of documented testimonials are those put
forth by you. How about submitting some of those amps,
wires, cables, and speakers to an independent tester or two
for a checkout? If those products are as great as you say,
you will be in the chips. Even if it does not boost sales,
you can use the laudatory review as a lever against your
critics.
> Please report back on rahe IF you know of any other amps that come up
> to this build quality - the topology is a separate issue, but feel
> free to discuss that too. Ok?
The thing I need to know is if the superior quality of your
amp audibly matters. In order to do that, I need a sample to
review, and if you want you can ship me, or arrange to have
shipped to me, the required ancillary hardware that will
allow me to hear differences between your amp and an
AudioSource Amp One (list price $300) that I would use
during the matchup. If your unit is so demonstrably superior
to all comers, it should mop up the floor with the A-S unit.
> > Incidentally, I would love to review such an amp, and if the
> > gear I have on hand to use with it is substandard, I would
> > like a list of what I should get to do the job to your
> > standards. I will see if my editor at The Sensible Sound can
> > get that gear sent to me to both review for itself and to
> > use as ancillary gear when reviewing your amp.
> Sure... send me a private email, Howard.
> The amp however, is custom built - and so there are costs involved
> with this process, even with a potential loan.
Why do we need a private email? Well, actually, I did send
copies of a couple of my posted requests to you. So, you
have indeed been sent a private email. Of course, you have
made public claims about your products, and I think those
require a public request (in this case, by me) for you to
substantiate your claims.
> There may be a few other requirements that need to be negotiated
> privately.
Well, most of the manufacturers I deal with just send me
stuff to review. There is no big deal about it. However, you
have my cc posts to you, and so you can reply as you see
fit.
> > Of course, a DBT protocol will be the reference standard for
> > such a review, and the amp I would compare yours to would be
> > a vintage, $300 AudioSource Amp One. If your stuff is as
> > good as you claim, it should mop up the floor with that
> > cheap A-S unit.
> Not a problem, my friend!
It should be lots of fun. If you beat the A-S unit, I will
of course haul out some more upscale units to see how that
faceoff works.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > I've listened to the best there is, and I don't hear cables - ever.
> > *You* are the guy making the extraordinary claims here Randy, not me.
> > I repeat, what equipment do *you* claim is adequate to hear cable
> > differences?
> SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
> what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
> today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
> > While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
> > my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
(snip)
> > No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
> > equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
> > making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
> > right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
> That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
> conclusions and validity. Right?
But right here on this series of threads you have stated
that the equipment Nousaine used, as well as equipment used
by some others who have done DBTs and not heard differences
between mainstream amps and wires, is not up to the task of
revealing the artifacts you claim are audible if really,
really good, SOTA ancillary gear is employed.
Because you have said that, I think you owe it to us to
openly tell the group what equipment you consider up to the
task of being incorporated into a proper test/comparison
system. How are individuals going to be able to replicate
your findings if they do not know what equipment you used?
Of course, if the equipment you claim is needed is esoteric
and/or absurdly rare, then its relevance to most high-end
enthusiasts simply does not exist, and your claims about the
audibility of some artifacts are not really of much use.
Howard Ferstler
Dou Newhouse
>
> Not in my book. This is mid-fi/entry level high-end stuff, and is
> completely less than SOTA.
>
> differential between what some people report to hear and the
> published tests.
>
Presumably the equipment that meets you State of the Art standard
(which I haven't seen any instances of mentioned, only specs) would
allow you to discern lower levels of Arny's engineered artifacts
better than "mid-fi/entry level high-end stuff", this would be easily
confirmed in a blind test and would give you a strong standard to go
by. This also covers the testers' hearing; some may not be able to
discern the smaller differences, other may, the one with the proven
best hearing can do the tests of the cables at issue if you want. Of
course, you may have some argument with Arny's samples.
--
:Doug:
BEAR
GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD -
I already said what the requirements are - YOU can do the necessary
research to determine the type and brand names that are today's SOTA,
can't you??
On the other matter - either you can contact me privately or I will
conclude that you are grandstanding for the readers.
_-_-bear
Howard Ferstler wrote:
--
BEAR
Yes.
This is a reasonable presumption.
I do have some concerns about Arny's samples, based solely upon a
"test" CD that he was kind enough to send me some years back. But
otherwise, your presumptions are reasonable as far as I am concerned.
I also have concerns about Arny's "engineered artifacts" someone like
jj might better be able to design them - perhaps some are simply NOT
perceptable by humans, while still measureable? We clearly need those
that are believed perceptable - although perhaps not clearly
correlated by measurements!
I'm not against *any* tests that could resolve these issues in whole
or in part, or lead to their resolution and full understanding.
After all, the goal is "Musical Ecstasy" to borrow the late Harvey
Rosenberg's phrase.
:- )
Howard Ferstler
>
> Nice invite, Howard.
>
> But as I said in the other part of this thread where you made a
> similar offer, there are some other matters to be considered in order
> to make this happen - and expenses.
The manufacturer always covers the expenses. All of them.
> Please email me privately, if you and your editor are extremely
> serious about this, there are some things that are possible that I am
> willing to do and some things that are not.
You will be contacted. However, I do not see what you and I
would say that the others on this group should also not be
able to know about. After all, you made public claims about
the sound of the gear you like (some of which has still not
been named) and the sound of gear that you do not like, and
it strikes me that you should back up those public claims
with public correspondence to and from a potential reviewer.
We are not going to have any secrets about this.
At least not if I have any say about it.
Howard Ferstler
BEAR
Why do I owe you anything?
You owe yourself the effort to discover what SOTA performance is and
what it means. If an individual wants my personal choices as to
possible SOTA equipment, for such a test, they should contact me
personally.
I have no intention of opening up this discussion of TOM NOUSAINES
JAES PREPRINT to brand name equipment bashing!! That is pointless.
It is a fairly straightforward task to cull the published tests of
gear, and statistically identify candidates for SOTA performance in
most regards. Then you can follow up with appropriate testing of
those components that you can get your hands on, and decide for
yourself if they meet the criteria or not. Otherwise, *you* are not a
bona fide "investigator" and "researcher." This is the due dilligence
that is truly required if you want to *attempt* to do these tests in
any sort of reasonably definitive manner.
> Of course, if the equipment you claim is needed is esoteric
> and/or absurdly rare, then its relevance to most high-end
> enthusiasts simply does not exist, and your claims about the
> audibility of some artifacts are not really of much use.
Ahhh!
A different tune now?
SO, Mr. Ferstler, you'd rather beg off than deal with the real issues
(Today's esoteric is tomorrows mundane. I say if they are there, and
they are audible, we should find out one way or the other - until
then, you personally might be well advised to stop the constant
mantra that you have been spieling over and over on rahe and
elsewhere.)
So, tell us all, what is your position on the merits of Tom's paper
and articles? Forget about what I think.
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:9m39i...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m =
> 145dB.
> > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > comes to..."
> > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
> OK, most speaker cables and interconnects meet this spec for "SOTA".
> Yet, you seem to be claiming that they are inadequate,
I seem? Again another assumption not borne out by what I actually said,
Arny.
> but your spec
> is adequate. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, if not
> circular logic.
Actually, of this I am not so sure...
Probably most cables will meet the spec for 20-20kHz, but maybe not.
Mr. Dunlavy seems to have patents that say otherwise, no?
I criticized only the active components with regard to Mr. Nousaine's
published JAES preprint, and his two Stereo Review articles. So, far
this is sufficient to make the case that I brought.
Let's stick to the matter of Mr. Nousaine's papers and conclusions??
Start another thread for these other issues.
Do you support his work and conclusions or not??
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> >BEAR bear...@netzero.net
> >Date: 8/23/01 10:44 PM !!!First Boot!!!
> >Message-id: <9m410...@enews2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >This set of statements, is partially logical, partly illogical...
> >
> >out...@city-net.com wrote:
> >
> >> One of the last fall back tactics taken by those who believe that wire is
> >> not wire is that the test gear was not sota, what ever that is.
> >
> >SOTA gear is the best measuring gear available today, period.
> >Easy to define.
>
> Which one component would that be. You muct have one in mind, don't
> you? Is it a real component? How about all the rest? They are not
> SOTA? So, then, only one component is worthy, then how can your
> compare any other? But that happens every day, doesn't it.
I'm sorry I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. The
idea is simply this: start with the best objectively available, then
work backwards. Do this for each component, and for the system as a
whole. Then you have (one may assume) assembled a SOTA system.
You may have misread my last statement - corrected for clarity:
SOTA hi-fi equipment is that equipment which objectively measures
best today. (as I noted, it also has to measure best as a whole in a
system)
> Snip
>
> >The same gear can not be tested against itself when it is also at
> >different price levels..
>
> What do you mean? How can one component have two prices?
I didn't say that... you or the last poster said something confusing.
That's why I was asking what it meant!
> And why
> cannot one component be tested against itself? You present it twice.
> Legitimate. Or, the answers are embarrasing that people get confised
> even over the same component?
Oh, sure, no problem... present the same thing as many times as you
like! It is clear from other tests that you'll get people picking
things even when they are the same... that tells us little about the
sound, and something about the way people decide things.
> snips
>
> >Let's be clear, MOST "audiophile" home systems will NOT rise to the
> >level close enough to SOTA so as to actually be able to *clearly*
> >identify many of these subtle "lower order" differences. A larger
> >number *may* be able to discern a *change* but that "change" is often
> >murky and diffuse.
>
> Then you dismiss all claims and no positive outcomes occurr, except
> on your gear, of course.
From whence does this last assertion arrise??
I never said that.
--
_-_-bearlabs
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:9m39i...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m =
> > 145dB.
> > > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > > comes to..."
> > > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
> >
> > OK, most speaker cables and interconnects meet this spec for "SOTA".
> > Yet, you seem to be claiming that they are inadequate,
> I seem? Again another assumption not borne out by what I actually said,
> Arny.
I'm referring to what you've said in the past about cables having
audible signatures.
> > but your spec
> > is adequate. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, if not
> > circular logic.
> Actually, of this I am not so sure...
Haven't you said that audio cables have audible colorations and that
you could hear the difference between them?
> Probably most cables will meet the spec for 20-20kHz, but maybe
> not.
You don't know?
> Mr. Dunlavy seems to have patents that say otherwise, no?
no.
> I criticized only the active components with regard to Mr. Nousaine's
> published JAES preprint, and his two Stereo Review articles. So, far
> this is sufficient to make the case that I brought.
Only in your mind, it Seems.
> Let's stick to the matter of Mr. Nousaine's papers and
> conclusions??
So far the only support I see for your claims about them is proof by
assertion.
> Start another thread for these other issues.
Your position does seem to be self-contradictory. First you seem to
launch out on a theme based on the idea of audible differences that
can't be measured, and then you give measurable specifications for
equipment that is supposed to be sufficient for critical listening.
That seems contradictory to me!
> Do you support his work and conclusions or not??
I've cited two standards for equipment to be used for critical
listening. I don't know which if either procedures were used by Mr.
Nousaine, but if neither was used, it's probably because neither
standard existed when he did his work.
Arny Krueger
news:9m6c6...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> I do have some concerns about Arny's samples, based solely upon a
> "test" CD that he was kind enough to send me some years back.
I had BIG concerns about that test CD, including the program material
the samples were made from. I completely reengineered the test
samples and the source material, for www.pcabx.com .
> I also have concerns about Arny's "engineered artifacts" someone
like
> jj might better be able to design them - perhaps some are simply
NOT
> perceptible by humans, while still measurable?
The engineered artifacts are well-known and "cookbook".
Common forms of audio distortion have well-known and precise
mathematical descriptions. I implemented the precise mathematical
descriptions of each form of distortion. The work was QC'd by
processing test signals composed of various pure tones along with the
music. Since all known forms of distortion have a precise
mathematical description, the indicated math was applied to pure
tones, and the analytical results were compared to the experimental
results.
Could anybody do better? Irrelevant. They haven't done better and put
it where you can listen to it. Why wonder about something you can't
have when you have not exploited something that is good and freely
available?
For example, take a look at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm . The rows show
the order of distortion. The columns indicate percentages of
distortion. The indicated distortion was applied mathematically, flat
over the entire audio range. 1 KHz tones, and a number of different
multitones such as used at www.pcavtech.com were used to QC the
process. IOW when I made the musical samples with 1% second order
THD, the pure tones and multitones were analyzed with a spectrum
analyzer, and the additional distortion products were identical with
what the math says that 1% second order nonlinearity would cause.
Now some of these levels and orders of distortion are audible and
some of them are inaudible and some are easy to hear and some are
hard to hear - that's the experience that
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm offers the
listener. The higher amount of higher orders are, as all other
scientific listening tests suggest, more audible.
>We clearly need those
> that are believed perceptible - although perhaps not clearly
> correlated by measurements!
It is well-known that the inverse is true. Every known form of noise
and distortion is easy to measure, even when it is at levels that
*nobody* can hear in a reliable listening test. When all known forms
of distortion are at levels that can be heard, they can easily be
measured.
The samples at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm and
almost every other page referenced by
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/index.htm covers distortions that
range from audible to inaudible, but they are always measurable.
> I'm not against *any* tests that could resolve these issues in
whole
> or in part, or lead to their resolution and full understanding.
Here's your chance. Listen and learn.
> After all, the goal is "Musical Ecstasy" to borrow the late Harvey
> Rosenberg's phrase.
My personal goal is elimination of audible distortion, which leaves
just the true sound of live music.
Nousaine
>>
>> OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
>> under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest
>are
>> audible?
>
>No. I can not. I can and have suggested some reasons.
>
>> Why haven't you?
>
>Mostly time and money, and an assistant to do the controlled tests
>that would be required. I am open completely to anyone, almost at any
>time who wants to foot the relative small bill to do the job right,
>and get part of the glory when the results (for better or for worse)
>have been published. ok?
OK, when?
>
>> I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
>> in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've
>given
>> as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
>> designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my
>own
>> dime. I've gone to a wire company factory.
>
>No doubt. I don't question your efforts being well intentioned for
>the most part. I question your conclusions and pronouncements.
I've made no pronouncements. I've merely reported the results. Conclusions have
been drawn from the evidence. I've also gone far out of my way to allow those
differences to be present in a bias controlled environment. I mean far out of
my way ....out of state home reference systems, no time limits, visit to
factory, etc.
>> Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
>> has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
>> differences.'
>
>First off, most of these things are measureable long before they are
>audible - so that's part of the problem... most things measure
>"differently." Even two identical amps actually measure differently.
>For real.
Yeah we all know that.
>So, we're not looking to hear "unmeasurable differences" at all.
>We're looking to detect audible differences between gear that seems
>to measure in a gross sense (you know IM,THD, flatness, freq resp,
>etc., etc.) pretty much the same, or "pretty good" (you know above
>the mean for all "high-end" gear - if you want to look at it as a
>statistic based upon "all" gear - just an idea of how to get at
>it...). You know - Rat Shack interconnect vs. BEAR Labs Silver
>Lightning! Ought to sound the same. That sort of thing.
OK
>> Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
>
>I suggested that there have been serious problems in the tests that I
>have read that have been published with respect to both the equipment
>selection and source material - at minimum. I thought I made this
>clear enough? (...yours was no exception)
Well how about a personal reference system with the subjects personal reference
material? Once it included Dunlavy speakers, Pass amplifiers, etc. I also
personally assembled a 'tweaked out system' vs an obviously lo-fi system tomake
differences as gross as possible. I am not sure what else I could do
personally.
I'm willing to give you your chance though.
>My mind is completely open to the possibility that the results of
>tests that I might "approve of" might be completely contrary to my
>expectations as they presently are!! In FACT, my views on the
>audibility of certain things have generally started with the same
>sort of convictions that you and others espouse here, but have been
>confounded over time - and as the SOTA has advanced, it has become
>clear to me (at least) that *something* is going on that *is*
>audible, but has not yet been explained in a satisfatory way.
Sure but it should be easy to show it's audible. All you need is a bias
controlled listening test. As I said I've devoted more resources to finding a
'proof' for your point than any single individual I know (save, perhaps, for
ArnyK.)
>Something clearly more than mere expectation.
Such as? How can you be sure when you can't define a set of conditions that can
be duplicated by others? The SOTA specifications you posted earlier cannot obe
met by any loudspeaker I'm familiar with. Which ones were you referring to?
>To repeat, I do NOT have a dogmatic view of this issue at all.
>
> _-_-bear
>
>--
> _-_-bearlabs
>
>http://www.bearlabsUSA.com
OK. Where and when?
BEAR
> BEAR wrote:
> >
> > Nice invite, Howard.
> >
> > But as I said in the other part of this thread where you made a
> > similar offer, there are some other matters to be considered in order
> > to make this happen - and expenses.
>
> The manufacturer always covers the expenses. All of them.
Where is that written??
Who decided this??
> > Please email me privately, if you and your editor are extremely
> > serious about this, there are some things that are possible that I am
> > willing to do and some things that are not.
>
> You will be contacted. However, I do not see what you and I
> would say that the others on this group should also not be
> able to know about. After all, you made public claims about
> the sound of the gear you like (some of which has still not
> been named) and the sound of gear that you do not like, and
> it strikes me that you should back up those public claims
> with public correspondence to and from a potential reviewer.
> We are not going to have any secrets about this.
Sorry, Howard, business will NOT be discussed here on rahe. Ever.
Check the FAQ.
What you see and don't really isn't important to this discussion at
all, if you *saw* you would be a mind reader, or you would be able to
anticipate what I have to say - and since you can't you might be
better off saying nothing at all?
I haven't made any "public claims" at all regarding my gear in the
context of this thread. Actually, precious few at all, at any time on
rahe or elsewhere for that matter. Check Google, for the last few
years worth. Find them, if I am wrong, and show me up. Otherwise,
please STOP, CEASE AND DESIST putting words in my mouth, claiming
that I have said things that I have not.
Ok?
> At least not if I have any say about it.
Howard, you are free to post anything that the moderators will
approve.
Fact is, that you're desperate to try to change the topic - since you
know that you have nothing solid under your feet at present.
May I remind you that the TOPIC is TOM NOUSAINE'S JAES PREPRINT?
not me.
not my gear.
not my opinions of what is good or not.
we are trying to discuss the merits of Tom's tests, paradigm,
conclusions and opinions.
let's get with it!
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> BEAR wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > > BEAR wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > > > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> > > > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > > > comes to..."
> > > > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
> > > I assume you are talking about an amp.
> >
> > Bad assumption.
>
> Well, what is it? Speakers? You have speakers that respond
> out to 250 kHz and can hit 145 dB?
Which part of "as close as today's technology comes" do you fail to
comprehend, Mr. Ferstler??
And, for homework, please tell us all if a driver exists that will
take the top end out to about 250kHz.?? If not, please tell us which
one comes closest?
When you are done, you will have begun the educational process of how
to identify what is and what is NOT state of the art.
But, the homework is a serious request.
All the readers can wait to see IF you come up with anything
substantive.
(FYI, I know the answer off the top of my head - do you?)
> Why are you being so vague? Why keep it a secret? The group
> wants to know what equipment Randy Bear considers to be
> SOTA. Yeah, I have seen your web site, but what else out
> there can match the Bear hardware? Can anything else be
> equal to what you make and sell?
Why are you baiting me?
These are juvenile tactics, Howard.
This clearly has nothing to do with *my* gear, it has to do with your
insecurity with having to support a position that has no solid
basis.
I'm waiting for you or anyone else to support Tom's paper, his
conclusions and his opinions based upon THAT PAPER.
> > > What brand might that
> > > be that would achieve those specifications? Yours? Do any
> > > others, besides yours, come up to those standards?
>
> > Yes, there are a few that are SOTA by today's standards.
> >
> > READ AGAIN: "as close as today's technology comes..."
> >
> > Got it now???
>
> No, I do not. What I need is a brand name, so that I can get
> the required items and do double-blind comparisons SOTA
> style. Are you saying that the only SOTA hardware on earth
> is what Randy Bear makes?
no but you keep repeating it.
I will ignore the rest of these innane posts by you, Howard, if you
persist in this sort of attack.
> And if that is the case, we have a situation where your
> comments about the sound of wires and amps when coupled to
> SOTA gear becomes essentially meaningless. This is because
> most audio buffs, even those who have exotic tastes and
> spend on upscale gear, do not have sound systems with enough
> quality to highlight the differences you say exist.
> Therefore, for all intents and purposes, at least with the
> vast majority of audio buffs who do not own your equipment
> brands, wires and amps do indeed sound alike.
Since this is a construction of your imagination, it is clearly
baseless. Your ASSUMPTIONS are generally false.
> > > Has
> > > anyone reviewed that amp, in order to validate its superior
> > > performance?
>
> > Come here, test it.
> > Buy one, test it.
>
> Why not submit it for a review? That is what reputable
> manufacturers do when they want to get their stuff out onto
> the marketplace. Also, if they are reputable, they will want
> to put their stuff up against competitive brands, with those
> evaluations being done by those with no vested interest in
> selling those amps. You claim your amps are great, and yet
> all we have for proof is your opinion. I would not consider
> that kind of opinion as unbiased, no matter who had it.
I think that you are ignorant about a whole host of issues, to wit these
comments are simplistic and parochial. Quite frankly, I'm trying
to be very restrained with your comments, Howard.
My opinions about *my* equipment are meaningless - they play
NO ROLE in my comments about Mr. Nousaine's JAES preprint.
Please stop this preposterous nonsense.
> > IF it doesn't meet its spec's I'll either find the fault and make
> > sure it does, or refund your money.
>
> I do not want to buy the thing. I want to review your stuff,
> in order to see if your claims about it are valid. Other
> manufacturers have done this. Why don't you want to do it?
> Have any of your amps been reviewed by anybody except
> yourself or maybe your friends? How about letting an
> outsider review one of them?
I asked you to send me a private email, and we'll see...
which part of that is hard to follow?
> > Have you bothered to look at my website to see what this amp is??
> > It's under "Amplifiers" then look at the Symphony No.1 - be sure to
> > click on the links within the text.
>
> Yes, I looked at it. Very impressive.
Thank you.
> Unfortunately, all we
> have in the way of documented testimonials are those put
> forth by you. How about submitting some of those amps,
> wires, cables, and speakers to an independent tester or two
> for a checkout? If those products are as great as you say,
> you will be in the chips. Even if it does not boost sales,
> you can use the laudatory review as a lever against your
> critics.
What critics?
> > Please report back on rahe IF you know of any other amps that come up
> > to this build quality - the topology is a separate issue, but feel
> > free to discuss that too. Ok?
>
> The thing I need to know is if the superior quality of your
> amp audibly matters. In order to do that, I need a sample to
> review, and if you want you can ship me, or arrange to have
> shipped to me, the required ancillary hardware that will
> allow me to hear differences between your amp and an
> AudioSource Amp One (list price $300) that I would use
> during the matchup. If your unit is so demonstrably superior
> to all comers, it should mop up the floor with the A-S unit.
We've covered this...
> > > Incidentally, I would love to review such an amp, and if the
> > > gear I have on hand to use with it is substandard, I would
> > > like a list of what I should get to do the job to your
> > > standards. I will see if my editor at The Sensible Sound can
> > > get that gear sent to me to both review for itself and to
> > > use as ancillary gear when reviewing your amp.
>
> > Sure... send me a private email, Howard.
> > The amp however, is custom built - and so there are costs involved
> > with this process, even with a potential loan.
>
> Why do we need a private email? Well, actually, I did send
> copies of a couple of my posted requests to you. So, you
> have indeed been sent a private email. Of course, you have
> made public claims about your products, and I think those
> require a public request (in this case, by me) for you to
> substantiate your claims.
Thanks, Marshall Dillon...
No private discussion, not a prayer for anything here to happen.
Business will NOT be discussed in a public forum. Period.
> > There may be a few other requirements that need to be negotiated
> > privately.
>
> Well, most of the manufacturers I deal with just send me
> stuff to review. There is no big deal about it. However, you
> have my cc posts to you, and so you can reply as you see
> fit.
Not really interested then.
> > > Of course, a DBT protocol will be the reference standard for
> > > such a review, and the amp I would compare yours to would be
> > > a vintage, $300 AudioSource Amp One. If your stuff is as
> > > good as you claim, it should mop up the floor with that
> > > cheap A-S unit.
>
> > Not a problem, my friend!
>
> It should be lots of fun. If you beat the A-S unit, I will
> of course haul out some more upscale units to see how that
> faceoff works.
>
> Howard Ferstler
Howard, why don't you fly your self up here, it's a whole lot cheaper
than shipping my amp to you. We'll test you to see what you can hear
first. You can pack the lightweight A-S unit in a box and UPS it in
advance or throw it in the overhead with you... Fall is beautiful in
the northeast.
--
_-_-bearlabs
BEAR
> Nousaine wrote:
>
> > OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
> > under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest are
> > audible? Why haven't you? I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
> > in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've given
> > as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
> > designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my own
> > dime. I've gone to a wire company factory. Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
> > has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
> > differences.' Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
>
> In addition, why has Mr. Bear kept his entire operation
> within a closed system, whereby none of his stuff gets
> reviewed and all we have in the way of comments about its
> excellence are his statements to that effect?
Howard, where are you getting this idea??
What makes you think that reviews mean anything at all?
Oh? You're a *reviewer*!
What does it matter if my BEAR Labs gear is complete garbage or not -
in terms of this discussion?? You may assume it is. All you have to
do is to get your scientific nihlists at Sensible Sound to do an
*objective* and thorough survey of the extant gear and identify a
list of likely SOTA gear - from that actually do some *thorough*
tests and report them, then you've got what you are bellyaching
about.
And, I'm not talking about the "tests" like those found in Stereo
Review, or the ones in Consumer Reports. Neither are thorough in any
sense of the word.
> And why is it
> that virtually every speaker system used in comparisons he
> does not agree with end up being speaker systems that he
> claims are no good. Just what speakers out there come up to
> his standards?
Ones that are in the top 1-2% of the SOTA today by objective
standards. Period.
> If his own stuff, plus those speakers, is as good as he says
> it is, and his hearing is as good as he says it is, why
> hasn't he gone to the trouble to do some serious evaluations
> and comparisons, and then submit the results to the JAES?
> Heck, he could even submit the results of his research to a
> pop journal like The Sensible Sound. It would certainly make
> a splash.
Who are you talking to?
The subject of *this* thread is specifically Mr. Tom Nousaine's JAES
preprint, and Stereo Review articles... of which you have said
nothing.
> If he really came across with some documented proofs, I
> would try to get his data into the magazine. However, they
> would have to be documented thoroughly, and if he claims
> differences are audible, he would have to be able to back up
> those claims by having some additional people participate in
> his listening sessions. Double-blind, level-matched,
> quick-switch listening/comparing sessions, of course.
> Preferably supervised by an outsider.
And, of course, the guy who published is Nousaine. Let's talk about
THAT.
Of course, you've read the threads that are replies to your other
posts on the "review" subject, and have time to write here on rahe,
but I have no *private* email on the subject. Are you blowing smoke
or what?
--
_-_-bearlabs
Nousaine
>To both the previous posters on this subject:
>
>Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
>today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
>technology comes..."
>
>Why is that hard to comprehend??
>
>What has been suggested so far is akin to making generalizations
>about race car performance based upon the abilities of drivers and
>cars from some years ago, or even today's cars & drivers, but drawn
>from less than the *best* that run today! Absurd, isn't it? The
>maximum performance *is* the maximum - anything less is *less*.
Hey you owe all of us a reference for a <1% distortion loudspeaker with a 250
kHz bandwidth and 145-dB capability don't you think?
I've tested hundreds of loudspeakers, built dozens of them, currently own the
only low frequency system in the world that can do 120-dB SPL @ 2-meters <10%
harmonic distortion over a 12-62 Hz bandwidth. AFAIK that's the current state
of the art for subwoofers. Yet it seems to miss your standard by quite a bit.
How do you do it? Can you point me to a commercially available system that
meets your spec?
If not I'd guess your SOTA standards cannot be met with current loudspeaker
technology and therefore you have not verified your own claims of differences
because the reference equipment required doesn't exist. Is that about it?
MtryCraft
>Date: 8/24/01 8:07 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <9m6c6...@enews4.newsguy.com>
>
>MtryCraft wrote:
>
>>snips
>You may have misread my last statement - corrected for clarity:
>SOTA hi-fi equipment is that equipment which objectively measures
>best today. (as I noted, it also has to measure best as a whole in a
>system)
Nope. Didn't misread. You must have one in mind as by your own admission they
measure different, so only one can be the best. Since you have that oine in
mind, please share that. This is not the 20 guess game.
>> Snip
>Oh, sure, no problem... present the same thing as many times as you
>like! It is clear from other tests that you'll get people picking
>things even when they are the same... that tells us little about the
>sound, and something about the way people decide things.
>
And that is very important howpeople decide things. If they are so gullible, or
inner nature to guess a difference without justification, that fact is a clue
what is happening in audio listening.
>> snips
>> Then you dismiss all claims and no positive outcomes occurr, except
>> on your gear, of course.
>
From whence does this last assertion arrise??
>
>I never said that.
If no component but one meets your SOTA, then only that alone can be used to
determine audible differences and all others are insufficient, by your
statements to date. And any such comparisons must be null and void by your
standards.
>--
> _-_-bearlabs
MtryCraft
>Date: 8/24/01 11:04 PM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <9m6mh...@enews1.newsguy.com>
>
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> BEAR wrote:
>> >
>
>May I remind you that the TOPIC is TOM NOUSAINE'S JAES PREPRINT?
>not me.
>not my gear.
>not my opinions of what is good or not.
>we are trying to discuss the merits of Tom's tests, paradigm,
>conclusions and opinions.
>
>let's get with it!
>
>--
> _-_-bearlabs
>
>http://www.bearlabsUSA.com
What better way to demonstrate that Tom's experiment did not have the 'right
stuff' than for you to demonstrate that you can do better and get a positive
outcome. Go for it. You could be famous.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Howard,
>
>GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD -
>
>I already said what the requirements are - YOU can do the necessary
>research to determine the type and brand names that are today's SOTA,
>can't you??
>
>On the other matter - either you can contact me privately or I will
>conclude that you are grandstanding for the readers.
He's not grandstanding, he's raised the one point which you are
terrified to answer, for precisely the reason he states. *You* are the
one making the baseless claims about audibility of cables, so *you*
tell us what gear *you* consider to be SOTA, then *we* can verify
*your* claims. Of course, that might not work out too well for your
claims, mightn't it?.............. :-)
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> BEAR wrote:
>> >
>> > To both the previous posters on this subject:
>> >
>> > Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
>> > today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
>> > technology comes..."
>> >
>> > Why is that hard to comprehend??
>>
>> Why not just tell us? Is it some kind of secret? I get the
>> impression that you are withholding this information, so
>> that when others do comparisons with gear that they hope is
>> SOTA, you can again chime in and claim that they used
>> substandard gear. You could almost do this indefinitely, as
>> various individuals try to do comparisons with what they
>> hope is SOTA gear, and continue to fail by your standards.
>>
>> Also, I will repeat my request for some of your gear to
>> review for The Sensible Sound, along with information about
>> what ancillary gear is required for me to do a proper DBT. I
>> will see if I can get my editor to round some of that gear
>> up, but I need to know what it is, first.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>Nousaine wrote:
>> As for "system noise" rest assured any system that produces null results for
>> Randy's claims will not be qualified. It's intersting that folks like Randy
>> seem to hear unverified effects easily as long as the answers are known in
>> advance.
>
>This is an assertion without basis.
>This is NOT my position at all.
Hooey, that is *exactly* your position. In this and other threads, you
make baseless claims that others must be using sub-standard equipment
if they cannot hear effects which *you* claim to exist. You however
*refuse* to list items which will meet your requirements for allowing
such effects to be heard. In this way of course, you can simply
dismiss *every* null test as flawed due to 'inferior' equipment. It's
a crock, Randy, and we all know it.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>But it *does* follow that from a large enough number of tests, one can
>>conclude that there is *unlikely* to be any perceptible difference
>>between signals. By the same token all scientific facts can be rendered
>
>When enough variables have been either eliminated from the tests
>conditions or taken into account within the tests (and shown in tests to
>have no effect on the results).
>
>Within these boundaries, yes, I agree completely with you.
>
>Otherwise what we have is a hypothesis (one of possibly many).
>
>However, I have *not* ever seen "a large numer of" *scientific* tests
>proving some of the stuff that some people here claim so vehemently.
What do people claim? The most vehement claim I've seen on the
'scientific' side is that there has never been a *positive* test for
cables which did not have *gross* electrical differences. This claim
doesn't require to be supported by large numbers of null tests, it
just needs *one* positive test to refute it. Yet, depite vehement
claims of audibility, and accusations that those who can't hear cables
must be deaf and/or using 'inferior' equipment, we see no such test
results being published.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> I've listened to the best there is, and I don't hear cables - ever.
>> *You* are the guy making the extraordinary claims here Randy, not me.
>> I repeat, what equipment do *you* claim is adequate to hear cable
>> differences?
>
>SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
>what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
>today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
It's not at all difficult to grasp, and neither is the reason why you
are desperately trying to avoid answering the question. *You* claim
that cables are audible, so *you* must have heard this for yourself,
right? So, what do *you* consider to be a SOTA system on which the
rest of us can hear these differences? It's not a difficult question
Randy, but you seem to be desperately trying to avoid answering it. I
wonder why?
>> While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
>> my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
>
>I'd be happy to do this in a private email, Stew, or in another
>thread about the performance and design of Krell amps - please feel
>free to start it. Be prepared to be taken apart.
Heh heh, this should be fun.
>> No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
>> equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
>> making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
>> right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
>
>That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
>conclusions and validity. Right?
No, the question at hand is your claims regarding Tom's paper, and
your attempts to weasel out of your criticism that Tom was using
'substandard' gear in his tests, while refusing to say what you would
consider to adequate to hearv the differences that you claim exist.
Put up, or shut up.
>Sorry, despite your baseless assertion Stew, I am NOT in the snake
>oil business. You and some others would like to brand me that way,
>but that would be a false accusation. Quite the opposite, I *love* to
>measure things. : -)
Oh, so now cable differences are just measurable, not audible? More
smoke and mirrors, Randy?
BEAR
> Randy wrote:
>
> >>
> >> OK but can you explain to me why no one so far has been able to demonstrate
> >> under bias-controlled conditions these unmeasurable differences you suggest
> >are
> >> audible?
> >
> >No. I can not. I can and have suggested some reasons.
> >
> >> Why haven't you?
> >
> >Mostly time and money, and an assistant to do the controlled tests
> >that would be required. I am open completely to anyone, almost at any
> >time who wants to foot the relative small bill to do the job right,
> >and get part of the glory when the results (for better or for worse)
> >have been published. ok?
>
> OK, when?
Serious inquiries about this should be handled via private email or
US mail, please.
>
>
> >
> >> I've surely done my part. I've conducted blind tests
> >> in audiophiles home systems with their personal reference material. I've
> >given
> >> as long as 5-weeks warm-up with the test gear installed.I've included the
> >> designer of a branded wire. I've traveled half way across the country on my
> >own
> >> dime. I've gone to a wire company factory.
> >
> >No doubt. I don't question your efforts being well intentioned for
> >the most part. I question your conclusions and pronouncements.
>
> I've made no pronouncements. I've merely reported the results. Conclusions have
> been drawn from the evidence.
Obviously, we differ on these things.
> I've also gone far out of my way to allow those
> differences to be present in a bias controlled environment. I mean far out of
> my way ....out of state home reference systems, no time limits, visit to
> factory, etc.
These factors were not mentioned in the JAES Preprint that I could
see. Nor did I find this in the Stereo Review articles.
>
>
> >> Yet not one person anywhere, anytime
> >> has ever given a demonstration of being able to hear 'unmeasureable
> >> differences.'
> >
> >First off, most of these things are measureable long before they are
> >audible - so that's part of the problem... most things measure
> >"differently." Even two identical amps actually measure differently.
> >For real.
>
> Yeah we all know that.
Some people still don't seem to know that.
>
>
> >So, we're not looking to hear "unmeasurable differences" at all.
> >We're looking to detect audible differences between gear that seems
> >to measure in a gross sense (you know IM,THD, flatness, freq resp,
> >etc., etc.) pretty much the same, or "pretty good" (you know above
> >the mean for all "high-end" gear - if you want to look at it as a
> >statistic based upon "all" gear - just an idea of how to get at
> >it...). You know - Rat Shack interconnect vs. BEAR Labs Silver
> >Lightning! Ought to sound the same. That sort of thing.
>
> OK
>
> >> Not ONE. Not EVER. How's come that?
> >
> >I suggested that there have been serious problems in the tests that I
> >have read that have been published with respect to both the equipment
> >selection and source material - at minimum. I thought I made this
> >clear enough? (...yours was no exception)
>
> Well how about a personal reference system with the subjects personal reference
> material? Once it included Dunlavy speakers, Pass amplifiers, etc. I also
> personally assembled a 'tweaked out system' vs an obviously lo-fi system tomake
> differences as gross as possible. I am not sure what else I could do
> personally.
I have not a clue what you may or may not have done privately. I was
commenting upon your PUBLISHED work that you provided to me. I can't
comment on things that are not known to me.
>
>
> I'm willing to give you your chance though.
>
> >My mind is completely open to the possibility that the results of
> >tests that I might "approve of" might be completely contrary to my
> >expectations as they presently are!! In FACT, my views on the
> >audibility of certain things have generally started with the same
> >sort of convictions that you and others espouse here, but have been
> >confounded over time - and as the SOTA has advanced, it has become
> >clear to me (at least) that *something* is going on that *is*
> >audible, but has not yet been explained in a satisfatory way.
>
> Sure but it should be easy to show it's audible. All you need is a bias
> controlled listening test. As I said I've devoted more resources to finding a
> 'proof' for your point than any single individual I know (save, perhaps, for
> ArnyK.)
I tend to agree with your assesment... many of these "things" should be
fairly easy to identify in the right listening test.
>
>
> >Something clearly more than mere expectation.
>
> Such as? How can you be sure when you can't define a set of conditions that can
> be duplicated by others?
I haven't tried to - I offered a critique of what you wrote. Your
paper has flaws, I do not think that your conclusions follow the test
results. I think that you tested for X, and actually tested for B...
> The SOTA specifications you posted earlier cannot obe
> met by any loudspeaker I'm familiar with. Which ones were you referring to?
Again, "the equipment that comes closest to..." Ok?
>
>
> >To repeat, I do NOT have a dogmatic view of this issue at all.
>
> OK. Where and when?
email me privately.
Thanks,
BEAR
> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:9m6c6...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > news:9m39i...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> > > > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m =
> > > 145dB.
> > > > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> > > > comes to..."
> > > > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
> > >
> > > OK, most speaker cables and interconnects meet this spec for "SOTA".
> > > Yet, you seem to be claiming that they are inadequate,
>
> > I seem? Again another assumption not borne out by what I actually said,
> > Arny.
>
> I'm referring to what you've said in the past about cables having
> audible signatures.
Yes.
They also measure differently, don't they?
> > > but your spec
> > > is adequate. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, if not
> > > circular logic.
>
> > Actually, of this I am not so sure...
>
> Haven't you said that audio cables have audible colorations and that
> you could hear the difference between them?
I *have heard* differences between cables, yes.
You should be able to, as well. L,C,R may be enough to explain, maybe
not.
> > Probably most cables will meet the spec for 20-20kHz, but maybe
> > not.
>
> You don't know?
>
I know, do you? I've read the "tests" too. Some do NOT have a flat
response 20-20k, do they?
> > Mr. Dunlavy seems to have patents that say otherwise, no?
>
> no.
He doesn't claim that his patented cables provide "8 ohms" nominal
impedance, and a flat frequency response, whereas other wire
doesn't?? If not, what's the patent? The way it looks, or the way the
wires go back and forth, or how it is soldered?? C'mon!
> > I criticized only the active components with regard to Mr. Nousaine's
> > published JAES preprint, and his two Stereo Review articles. So, far
> > this is sufficient to make the case that I brought.
>
> Only in your mind, it Seems.
Not in yours?
Clearly, if any one item in the signal chain is deficient that is
sufficient.
Right?
Are you claiming that all of the items in Tom's signal chain were
*sufficient*??
>
>
> > Let's stick to the matter of Mr. Nousaine's papers and
> > conclusions??
>
> So far the only support I see for your claims about them is proof by
> assertion.
>
> > Start another thread for these other issues.
>
> Your position does seem to be self-contradictory. First you seem to
> launch out on a theme based on the idea of audible differences that
> can't be measured, and then you give measurable specifications for
> equipment that is supposed to be sufficient for critical listening.
> That seems contradictory to me!
Think some more then...
By your logic, we can say NOTHING, since nothing is proven other than the
actual published report.
And, I did NOT say ANYTHING about audible differences that CAN NOT be
measured (you did) I said that "the measurements" have not yet been
correlated
to what is heard in an unambiguous manner. By definition, though "audible"
means heard, and what is heard can not be directly "measured" - it can be
reported upon and correlated to a test measurement by instruments. Ok??
Clear on it now?
> > Do you support his work and conclusions or not??
>
> I've cited two standards for equipment to be used for critical
> listening. I don't know which if either procedures were used by Mr.
> Nousaine, but if neither was used, it's probably because neither
> standard existed when he did his work.
Standards that you refuse to actually discuss beyond suggesting that
everyone on rahe must purchase a copy from one source, and as far as
yours are concerned you have refused to discuss in a meaningful way
the merits of what you claim is "sufficient" hardware to enable
"critical listening."
So, where is that at, Arny??
Guess you do NOT support Mr. Nousaine then??
--
_-_-bearlabs
Nousaine
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "BEAR" <bear...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:9m39i...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>> > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m =
>> 145dB.
>> > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>> > comes to..."
>> > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
None of the equipment posted on your website seems to meet all these
criteria although not much is specified. But even your large
amplifier doesn't meet the distortion specification. I also surely
didn't see any speakers that looked like they had 250 kHz bandwidth,
let alone 145-dB SPL output capability. If your own products aren't
SOTA what is? What equipment did you use to hear clarity and
complementary coloration differences?
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Nousaine
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> >> I stated that there is no technical criterion which can be ssociated
>> >> with hearing subtle sonic differences. You are making a baseless claim
>> >> that 'THESE TWO SYSTEMS CLEARLY WILL NOT BE TECHNICALLY CAPABLE'. I
>> >> say that this is purest cow slurry because it's most certainly *not*
>> >> clear that any particular system can resolve differences where another
>> >> cannot, unless you choose a really defective piece of kit.
>> >
>> >I claim that a Dalquist DQ-10 is clearly a defective "piece of kit."
>> >This, notwithstanding the commercial sucess it found. Compared to
>> >even a Dunlavy speaker it is a mess technically. Case closed.
>>
>> Case closed? I trust that you mean simply that the prosecution
>> rests.....
>>
>> You have in fact introduced *zero* evidence that any of the admitted
>> faults of the DQ-10 would prevent one noticing a *difference* among
>> cables, assuming of course that such a difference is in fact audible.
>>
>> Sorry, case not even vaguely proven.
>
>Nonsense.
>
> The distortion specs for the tweeter are enough to rule out this
>speaker system. IF you can't agree to that, then you'd better
>re-assume the Ostrich position, Mr. Pinkerton.
>
>> >> You make vague claims about 'going down from SOTA', yet you don't
>> >> *define* SOTA. THD, FR, dynamic range, what do you mean by SOTA? And
>> >> *puhleeze* don't say Mark Levinson or some other 'desgner label',
>> >> since that's a price tag, not a performance criterion.
>> >
>> >Right, why don't YOU state what technical specs are sufficient, such
>> >that improvments will NOT yield an audible change?? Which, is what
>> >you and Mr. Nousaine are claiming?
>>
>> I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims here, Randy. *You*
>> claim that cable differences are audible if you have good enough
>> equipment, so *you* tell us what equipment is good enough, so that we
>> can verify your claim.
>
>I made no claims, I critqued Mr. Nousaines article, you are
>attempting to use debating techniques to induce me to take a position
>that I have NOT taken.
>
>Cut the merde, Stew.
As I recall your position is that there are audible differences that
cannot be measured with existing methods. I that right? That sounds
to me like an extraordinary claim give the current research
available.
>> >I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>> >0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
>> >Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>> >comes to..."
>> >That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
Hey Randy I still want to know the availablity of that loudspeaker
with 250 kHz bandwidth and 145-dB 1meter capability.
>> Actually, you now have to quote a specific device which meets your
>> criteria, or get off the pot. *You* claim that cables are audible, so
>> *you* tell us what equipment is need to hear those differences.
>
>No, I made no claim. I said that Tom's tests showed NOTHING about
>that subject. Right?
>
>> The above is simply a wish list, *not* a description of the state of
>> the art. Unless you can specify *equipment* available today that
>> represent your definition of 'state of the art', then you're just
>> blowing smoke.
>
>Do some research, figure out which components today are SOTA for
>yourself. You're smart, right?
>
>> >> >If there is a threshold which can be described technically, above
>> >> >which everything sounds the same, and below which it sounds worse,
>> >> >please enumerate the details for us, Stew. We'd all like to know.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, we'd all like to know, but you claim it exists anyway, Randy? Just
>> >> what do *you* mean by SOTA technical performance? How *exactly* does
>> >> this differ from mediocre performance?
>> >
>> >Simple, with mediocre performance all the tests you do show that the
>> >ONLY thing that listeners can clearly discern *is* loudness
>> >differences across the entire spectrum and of a rather gross nature.
>>
>> Randy, you were asked to define SOTA performance. Do you have *any*
>> results from such equipment, or is this all just idle speculation and
>> misdirection?
>>
>> >> Could it be that there's *no such thing* as the sliding scale of
>> >> mediocrity you claim, and this is just another whine about how if we
>> >> can't hear differences between Cardas Golden Cross and zipcord, that
>> >> means we don't have a good enough system? Sheesh!
>> >
>> >Perhaps. Dunno what you can hear or not.
>>
>> More to the point, you're making wild claims with no evidence that
>> *you* can really hear any differences.
>>
>> >IF as you claim, there is no sliding scale of mediocrity, then why
>> >buy anything BUT a Sony *rack system* to listen to?? Your comment
>> >below about YOUR speakers shows that you don't believe your own
>> >argument!!
>>
>> So where is *your* evidence that *you* can hear differences?
>
>I'm deaf.
>I didn't write a bogus "test" article.
>I didn't draw erroneous conclusions from it.
>Stick to the topic, Stew.
Bogus :( Harumphh, I demand an apology.
>>
>>
>> >> >I clearly said, that the gear used made it *impossible* to detect
>> >> >much more than mere differences in loudness. This you may choose to
>> >> >debate all day long, but it's pretty damn clear that no Dalquist
>> >> >DQ-10 is going to resolve as much as, say, ummm... a Dunlavy!
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course, it might be as good as your Apogees, don't you think?
>> >>
>> >> Who knows? Just because a particular speaker doesn't sound good in an
>> >> overall sense, doesn't mean that it can't resolve fine detail.
>> >
>> >Yes it does. Although the tweeter and YOUR high frequency response
>> >makes for most of the "detail" that you think you are hearing.
>>
>> Evidence for your extraordinary claims?
>
>Turn your tweet off. Duh.
>
>> >> Now, if
>> >> you were talking about some of those old Bextrene-coned jobs where the
>> >> soundstage collapses at low-level, you might have a point, but in
>> >> terms of what one might call 'micr-resolution', absolutely not.
>> >>
>> >> OTOH, I can hear 'further into the mix' with my Apogees than with any
>> >> other speaker I've owned, but I don't think this has much to do with
>> >> the kind of difference you are claiming above.
>> >>
>> >> >> >As far as I am concerned, these tests all utilized what at best is
>> >> >> >"mid-fi" or maybe entry level "high-end" (to be charitable)
>> >> >> >equipment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where is *your* evidence that using 'state of the art' equipment will
>> >> >> alter these results?
>> >> >
>> >> >I do not need any evidence to show that the tests done by Mr.
>> >> >Nousaine are flawed - he has provided all the evidence required.
>> >>
>> >> What, you mean he didn't come up with answers which support your
>> >> baseless claims? How sad.......
>> >>
>> >> > IF
>> >> >the tests were done with SOTA equipment, and appropriate source
>> >> >material THEN we would have to consider the results seriously.
>> >>
>> >> And *your* results from such a system are? Since you seem to like my
>> >> Apogees, would you accept assurances from *me* that 'designer' cables
>> >> sound just like zipcord? I suspect not.........
>> >
>> >Actually, I've told you several times on this newsgroup that your
>> >beloved Apogees are actually a flawed design with out of phase
>> >components (large ones) on the surface of the bass panels, and
>> >standing waves on the ribbons - as well as some question as to the
>> >linearity of the ribbons in terms of the flux in the gap being less
>> >than linear with excursion - but never mind those technical details,
>> >eh?
>>
>> Indeed you have, but as with all your other wild claims, we see *zero*
>> evidence that this affects their midband resolution. You are claiming
>> that cables are audible, where's your *evidence*? What gear is 'good
>> enough'to hear these differences that you *claim* to hear?
>>
>> >> > But,
>> >> >as it stands, these results show nothing of significance beyond
>> >> >confirming that with badly reproduced music that the main differences
>> >> >are that of level. Upon this we can all agree. We can NOT then
>> >> >generalize and say that there are *no other audible differences which
>> >> >can be heard*, and identified, and reported using ABX/DBT means or
>> >> >similar "tests" AND *SOTA* equipment today. (and appropriate source
>> >> >material)
Dunlavy and Pass aren't good enough for you?
>> >>
>> >> Well hey, I don't know of any equipment which *significantly* improves
>> >> on what I'm using (otherwise I'd use it, wouldn't I?), and I broadly
>> >> agree with Tom.
>> >
>> >Actually, I think not, Stew. I think that your positions tend to be
>> >dogmatic and close minded in large part. There are quite a few
>> >speakers out there that are demonstrably and measurably better than
>> >those Apogees, and several amps that are similarly better than your
>> >beloved Krells. Now you know that there is better gear, so go buy
>> >some. Then get back to us.
>>
>> I've listened to the best there is, and I don't hear cables - ever.
>> *You* are the guy making the extraordinary claims here Randy, not me.
>> I repeat, what equipment do *you* claim is adequate to hear cable
>> differences?
>
>SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
>what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
>today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
>> While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
>> my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
>
>I'd be happy to do this in a private email, Stew, or in another
>thread about the performance and design of Krell amps - please feel
>free to start it. Be prepared to be taken apart.
>
>> >> >My point is exactly THAT - there have yet to be any tests of this
>> >> >sort that actually used truly SOTA audio equipment.
>> >>
>> >> Hey Randy, instead of all this vague hand-waving, why don't you define
>> >> SOTA equipment for us, then someone can check if they meet your
>> >> exalted criteria, whatever they might turn out to be.
>> >
>> >Just did - get to work.
>>
>> No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
>> equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
>> making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
>> right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
>
>That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
>conclusions and validity. Right?
That was yesterday's question. Today's is what do you claim is
audible that cannot currently ne ,measured? What evidence do you
bring to the table that overturna the existing evidence?
>>
>>
>> >> >SO, there is no
>> >> >way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
>> >> >as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
>> >>
>> >> It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
>> >> there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
>> >> merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
>> >
>> >Sorry, I am not in the snake oil business - I make ZERO claims of the
>> >sort that you allude to. Please do NOT lump me, or my position in
>> >with anyone else's - thank you.
So what are your claims then? Please be specific.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
>> my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
>
>I'd be happy to do this in a private email, Stew, or in another
>thread about the performance and design of Krell amps - please feel
>free to start it. Be prepared to be taken apart.
Heh heh, this should be fun. Just remember that this game has been
played before, and the 'golden ear' contender always seems to end up
with a face full of omelette...............
BEAR
Sounds ok to me...
Still have some concerns about related issues, but the idea is just
fine to me.
But, if your reproducer is producing equal or more of what you
describe as "audible" distortions, then how can you expect to hear
the effects of distortions that are *less* than the distortion of
your reproducer?
In the simplest terms this is my main objection to the published
tests that I have read so far. Ok?
We don't disagree about the elimination of audible distortion at all.
To that extent I applaud your efforts on this front.
Ok?
Nousaine
>BEAR wrote:
>
>> These tests can NOT be generalized into having a meaning beyond what
>> they actually tested - which in terms of what is or is NOT actually
>> audible vis-a-vis high end gear was NOT tested at all.
>>
>> So, I can only conclude that the articles in Stereo Review were
>> intended to mislead and deceive the readers - especially those who do
>> not or did not read very carefully and critically, separating the
>> facts from the opinions and conclusions of the author. Intentional
>> or not, this is what they did, IMHO.
>
>But he did do group tests, and within those situations he
>got results that backed his contentions. You have
>contentions, too, of course, and I am curious about what
>kind of level-matched, quick-switch, double-blind
>comparisons you have done with groups of people that prove
>your opposing contention. Tom also published his results (in
>both a popular and a technical journal) and I am curious
>about what you are going to do about publishing some
>articles that counter his findings. If you are serious about
>your contentions, I believe that is what you should do.
Just a minor point here. I did not conduct experiments to support my
"contentions." I did them to determine what the truth was. My
conclusions (rather that than contentions) are based on the
evidence.
C. Leeds
> In addition, why has Mr. Bear kept his entire operation
> within a closed system, whereby none of his stuff gets
> reviewed and all we have in the way of comments about its
> excellence are his statements to that effect?
Howard, Mr. bear doesn't *owe* you any equipment for review, does he?
If you have a hankerin' to review any of his stuff, you can buy any
of it that you like and write what you please, given the indulgence
of your editors.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> BEAR wrote:
>>
>> > I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
>> > 0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
>> > Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
>> > comes to..."
>> > That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>>
>> I assume you are talking about an amp.
>
>Bad assumption.
>
>> What brand might that
>> be that would achieve those specifications? Yours? Do any
>> others, besides yours, come up to those standards?
>
>Yes, there are a few that are SOTA by today's standards.
Excellent! Now, *list* a few that meet *your* requirements.
>> Has
>> anyone reviewed that amp, in order to validate its superior
>> performance?
>
>Come here, test it.
>Buy one, test it.
>
>IF it doesn't meet its spec's I'll either find the fault and make
>sure it does, or refund your money.
>
>Have you bothered to look at my website to see what this amp is??
>It's under "Amplifiers" then look at the Symphony No.1 - be sure to
>click on the links within the text.
>
>Please report back on rahe IF you know of any other amps that come up
>to this build quality - the topology is a separate issue, but feel
>free to discuss that too. Ok?
>
>(hint - there are some, if you look carefully that are close...)
Excellent! Now, instead of just claiming that the amps you sell are
the best (surprise!), *list* those others.
Chris Johnson
> BEAR wrote:
> > There is a whole lot of gear out there that produces excellent
> > results, other than BEAR Labs gear. But, I can't help it if you are
> > envious of my gear, John. ; -)
>
> This must be exceptional gear, and it seems like you would
> like to have some reviewers give some of it a proper once
> over.
> The review will be fair, but it will involve a serious
> series of DBT comparisons, with me and a number of other
> individuals participating.
> Your call.
> Howard Ferstler
...
The whole point of DBT is to be able to cut away pre-existing bias
that a difference exists between two components or systems of some
sort.
The whole _point_ is that human bias is so powerful that it can
cause people to consistently form judgements out of nothing simply by
their strength of prejudice.
However, there is NOTHING in DBT that can overcome bias that a
difference does NOT exist. If you are sufficiently convinced that
there will be no difference, it doesn't matter what is playing or how
good the ancillary equipment- you will reliably hear no difference
and the DBT won't do a thing to call you a liar.
Again, it doesn't matter how blind the tests are if you already
think no perceptible difference will exist. The test is powerless to
correct you on that- the only possible use it can serve is to
question the statistical validity of someone who _does_ claim to hear
differences, and put 'em under harsh scrutiny. If you suspect no
differences exist between sufficiently tolerable components, your own
pre-existing biases, the WHOLE POINT of having ABX testing in the
first place, will run unchecked. It can only call you a liar if
you're claiming to hear a difference. If you're claiming to hear no
difference and this is not a credible claim, surprise! ABX will back
you up even if you're conning yourself into hearing no difference
between Magnepans and a Sony boombox.
Given this completely reasonable objection having to do with the
strengths and weaknesses of DBTs' ability to debunk certain kinds of
biases and not others, how can you possibly claim this would be a
fair review?
Chris Johnson
BEAR
> BEAR bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>
> >To both the previous posters on this subject:
> >
> >Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
> >today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
> >technology comes..."
> >
> >Why is that hard to comprehend??
> >
> >What has been suggested so far is akin to making generalizations
> >about race car performance based upon the abilities of drivers and
> >cars from some years ago, or even today's cars & drivers, but drawn
> >from less than the *best* that run today! Absurd, isn't it? The
> >maximum performance *is* the maximum - anything less is *less*.
>
> Hey you owe all of us a reference for a <1% distortion loudspeaker with a 250
> kHz bandwidth and 145-dB capability don't you think?
No.
I said, and I REPEAT:
" as close as today's technology comes.."
In case you missed reading that, one more time:
"as close as today's technology comes.."
Ok, now?
>
>
> I've tested hundreds of loudspeakers, built dozens of them, currently own the
> only low frequency system in the world that can do 120-dB SPL @ 2-meters <10%
> harmonic distortion over a 12-62 Hz bandwidth. AFAIK that's the current state
> of the art for subwoofers. Yet it seems to miss your standard by quite a bit.
> How do you do it? Can you point me to a commercially available system that
> meets your spec?
No. That's NOT my role. I offered a critique of your paper consisting
of plausible deficits in your JAES published preprint. IF this is the
best available subwoofer today, then it is by *definition* the SOTA
subwoofer (assuming of course, that power and bandwidth are the only
critieria). Simple enough, eh??
>
>
> If not I'd guess your SOTA standards cannot be met with current loudspeaker
> technology and therefore you have not verified your own claims of differences
> because the reference equipment required doesn't exist. Is that about it?
No, read from the top again...
BEAR
> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> I've listened to the best there is, and I don't hear cables - ever.
> >> *You* are the guy making the extraordinary claims here Randy, not me.
> >> I repeat, what equipment do *you* claim is adequate to hear cable
> >> differences?
> >
> >SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
> >what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
> >today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
>
> It's not at all difficult to grasp, and neither is the reason why you
> are desperately trying to avoid answering the question. *You* claim
> that cables are audible, so *you* must have heard this for yourself,
> right? So, what do *you* consider to be a SOTA system on which the
> rest of us can hear these differences? It's not a difficult question
> Randy, but you seem to be desperately trying to avoid answering it. I
> wonder why?
>
BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TOM's PUBLISHED PAPER!!
Start another thread, Stew, if that is what you want to discuss. Ok?
>
> >> While you're at it, please nominate an amplifier which is better than
> >> my old Krell, and tell me what gear I can use to hear the difference.
> >
> >I'd be happy to do this in a private email, Stew, or in another
> >thread about the performance and design of Krell amps - please feel
> >free to start it. Be prepared to be taken apart.
>
> Heh heh, this should be fun.
>
> >> No Randy, don't just quote a wishlist of specs, tell us what *exact*
> >> equipment *you* claim is adequate to hear cables. Hey, *you* are
> >> making the claim, so *you* must have heard it with your own ears,
> >> right? Or is this all just smoke and mirrors?
> >
> >That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
> >conclusions and validity. Right?
>
> No, the question at hand is your claims regarding Tom's paper, and
> your attempts to weasel out of your criticism that Tom was using
> 'substandard' gear in his tests, while refusing to say what you would
> consider to adequate to hearv the differences that you claim exist.
> Put up, or shut up.
I said it, SOTA equipment. That means the *very best* that is
available today by objective measurement. Period. Anything less runs
the risk of having the artifacts of the system itself mask the very
things that intended to be tested.
If you want to start a thread on WHAT BRANDS and MODELS are SOTA
equipment today, start THAT thread.
In the mean time, you've said NOTHING about the PAPER and its
conclusions, Stew.
Rather you've taken every opportunity to try to put words in my mouth
and to attack me personally.
>
>
> >Sorry, despite your baseless assertion Stew, I am NOT in the snake
> >oil business. You and some others would like to brand me that way,
> >but that would be a false accusation. Quite the opposite, I *love* to
> >measure things. : -)
>
> Oh, so now cable differences are just measurable, not audible? More
> smoke and mirrors, Randy?
Logical consistancy escapes you?
As jj has said, and I agree, we can measure more than we can identify
by merely listening. I would posit that you can measure two examples
of the *same* cable and find differences, clearly you can measure two
1000' ft rolls of cable and measure differences. And, your ASSERTION,
Stew, is again NOT what I said.
I've said over and over, that the *correlation* of measurements to
what we hear is very weak. THAT is one of the major issues.
Get with it, man!
--
_-_-bearlabs
"engineering is still a gross approximation of reality..."
BEAR
> >BEAR bear...@netzero.net
> >Date: 8/24/01 8:07 PM !!!First Boot!!!
> >Message-id: <9m6c6...@enews4.newsguy.com>
> >
> >MtryCraft wrote:
> >
> >>snips
>
> >You may have misread my last statement - corrected for clarity:
>
> >SOTA hi-fi equipment is that equipment which objectively measures
> >best today. (as I noted, it also has to measure best as a whole in a
> >system)
>
> Nope. Didn't misread. You must have one in mind as by your own admission they
> measure different, so only one can be the best. Since you have that oine in
> mind, please share that. This is not the 20 guess game.
No, I have nothing in mind. I suggest that a researcher who wants to
do this sort of testing is obligated to do a thorough and vigorous
survey of the extant commercial gear and do or find testing to give
some sort of valid indication of performance. Then attempt to cull
that list to find the best examples of today's technology.
If I had something in mind, I would already be biased. Which,
surprisingly, I'm not.
FYI, I got started with my Symphony No.1 amplifier precisely because
at the time I wanted a high quality amplifier. I did just such a
survey and found NONE had all the design elements "covered" in a way
that I thought was SOTA. So, I built my own!! : -)
>
> >> Snip
>
> >Oh, sure, no problem... present the same thing as many times as you
> >like! It is clear from other tests that you'll get people picking
> >things even when they are the same... that tells us little about the
> >sound, and something about the way people decide things.
> >
>
> And that is very important howpeople decide things. If they are so gullible, or
> inner nature to guess a difference without justification, that fact is a clue
> what is happening in audio listening.
Absolutely true. IMHO!
This is why it is important to actually *have* the potential for an
audible difference to be *heard* so that there is the possibility
that it can be heard and identified as a basis for *a preference,*
rather than having mere randomness, or loudness dominate.
>
> >> snips
>
> >> Then you dismiss all claims and no positive outcomes occurr, except
> >> on your gear, of course.
> >
> From whence does this last assertion arrise??
> >
> >I never said that.
>
> If no component but one meets your SOTA, then only that alone can be used to
> determine audible differences and all others are insufficient, by your
> statements to date. And any such comparisons must be null and void by your
> standards.
That would be true, IF and ONLY IF these "less than SOTA" components
were not capable of reproduction of the "audible differences." The
problem right now is that we have no measure upon which to judge at
what point below SOTA that threshold is! So, the only way to be
reasonably sure of what is *possible* today is to use SOTA (or a
close as possible) for these tests.
And, the tests are NOT null and void, they are LIMITED to the
specific situations that are tested. The problem that I have is
people taking tests that are clearly limited and using them to first
GENERALIZE across the board, and to build a fervent philosophy which
is then used to bash anyone who is not in total agreement with it. (I
don't like that sort of thing regardless of who does it.)
Ok?
--
_-_-bearlabs
"...engineering is still approximation..."
BEAR
Your contention is nonsense, and again you assert that I am saying
something that I clearly am not. The issue is NOT what I can or can't
hear - I will stipulate
for this thread that I am stone deaf, ok? The issue is whether or not
the equipment
used in Mr. Nousaines test had a prayer of being able to reproduce
anything but gross loudness differences. This is clear.
The Dalquist DQ-10 used in at least one significant part of the test
CLEARLY by any objective standard is a mess by today's standards.
Do you deny this??
BEAR
> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> >Howard,
> >
> >GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD -
> >
> >I already said what the requirements are - YOU can do the necessary
> >research to determine the type and brand names that are today's SOTA,
> >can't you??
> >
> >On the other matter - either you can contact me privately or I will
> >conclude that you are grandstanding for the readers.
>
> He's not grandstanding, he's raised the one point which you are
> terrified to answer, for precisely the reason he states. *You* are the
> one making the baseless claims about audibility of cables, so *you*
> tell us what gear *you* consider to be SOTA, then *we* can verify
> *your* claims. Of course, that might not work out too well for your
> claims, mightn't it?.............. :-)
Quote me the baseless claim, Stew.
Howard, IMHO, is grandstanding. So are you.
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
--
Arny Krueger
Modern measurement techniques are sufficiently sensitive that
*everything* measures differently. So what is the cosmic meaning of
two things measuring differently?
>
> > > > but your spec
> > > > is adequate. That seems like a bit of a contradiction, if not
> > > > circular logic.
> >
> > > Actually, of this I am not so sure...
> > Haven't you said that audio cables have audible colorations and
that
> > you could hear the difference between them?
> I *have heard* differences between cables, yes.
> You should be able to, as well. L,C,R may be enough to explain,
maybe not.
> > > Probably most cables will meet the spec for 20-20kHz, but maybe
> > > not.
> > You don't know?
> I know, do you? I've read the "tests" too. Some do NOT have a flat
response 20-20k, do they?
All cables don't have perfectly flat response from 20-20K. Given that
I can reliably measure differences on the order of 0.001 dB, the
world is full of cables that don't have flat response.
> > > Mr. Dunlavy seems to have patents that say otherwise, no?
> > no.
> He doesn't claim that his patented cables provide "8 ohms" nominal
> impedance, and a flat frequency response, whereas other wire
> doesn't??
I don't believe that he claims that his cables have audibly better
response 20-20K.
> If not, what's the patent? The way it looks, or the way the
> wires go back and forth, or how it is soldered?? C'mon!
I'm not a patent lawyer, so I don't have an opinion. I don't believe
his patent claims audibly better response, 20-20K.
> > > I criticized only the active components with regard to Mr.
Nousaine's
> > > published JAES preprint, and his two Stereo Review articles.
So, far
> > > this is sufficient to make the case that I brought.
> > Only in your mind, it Seems.
I come from a part of the world where saying something does not make
it so. If you have a case to make, where is the detailed support for
it? Where are the measurements, where are the correlations with what
is known about the human ear to audible differences based on
psychoacoustic studies, etc?
> Not in yours?
I've stated the means that I use to judge the ability of listening
setups to resolve small differences. Basically, I play musical
samples that are different from each other in known, controlled ways,
musical samples that are known to sound different on good systems,
and see if they sound different on the test system using a listener
that is known to be able to hear the differences, at least on a good
system.
> Clearly, if any one item in the signal chain is deficient that is
sufficient.
Last time I listed them, there were 15 different components in a
typical audio signal chain. I believe that Mr. Nousaine's article
listed only 5 or 6 of them.
> Right?
Right, but for all 15 different components.
> Are you claiming that all of the items in Tom's signal chain were
*sufficient*??
I've stated the means by which they could be tested. The musical
samples are posted on the web and freely downloadable from
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
> > > Let's stick to the matter of Mr. Nousaine's papers and
> > > conclusions??
> > So far the only support I see for your claims about them is proof
by
> > assertion.
<no answer>
> > > Start another thread for these other issues.
> > Your position does seem to be self-contradictory. First you seem
to
> > launch out on a theme based on the idea of audible differences
that
> > can't be measured, and then you give measurable specifications
for
> > equipment that is supposed to be sufficient for critical
listening.
> > That seems contradictory to me!
> Think some more then...
> By your logic, we can say NOTHING, since nothing is proven other
than the actual published report.
I think I've shown that whether or not Mr. Nousaine's system is
adequate is provable by means available to just about everybody.
> And, I did NOT say ANYTHING about audible differences that CAN NOT
be
> measured (you did)
Did I?
> I said that "the measurements" have not yet been correlated
> to what is heard in an unambiguous manner.
Perhaps they have, but you are not aware of it.
>By definition, though "audible"
> means heard, and what is heard can not be directly "measured" - it
can be
> reported upon and correlated to a test measurement by instruments.
Ok??
No, what is heard can be measured.
> Clear on it now?
Now and then.
Arny Krueger
news:9m8ps...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> The whole point of DBT is to be able to cut away pre-existing
bias
> that a difference exists between two components or systems of some
> sort.
> The whole _point_ is that human bias is so powerful that it can
> cause people to consistently form judgments out of nothing simply
by
> their strength of prejudice.
> However, there is NOTHING in DBT that can overcome bias that a
> difference does NOT exist.
That is one reason that more than just DBT procedures are now used.
9 Requirements For a Sensitive, Reliable Listening Tests from
www.pcabx.com/index.htm
In addition to using DBT procedures, a number of other requirements
need to be met. They are:
(1) Careful selection of program material to include material that
causes audible difference(s) to be most easily heard.
(2) The listener must be sensitized to a particular artifact, so that
if the artifact is generated by the equipment, the listener will
notice it and have a useful reaction to it.
(3) Listening systematically so that known kinds of audible problems
are heard.
(4) The procedure should be "open" to detecting problems that aren't
necessarily technically well-understood at this time (a classic
problem with measurements, one that listening tests occasionally
address).
(5) We must have confidence that the Unit Under Test (UUT) is
representative of the kind of equipment it represents. In other words
the UUT is not broken, and it hasn't been appreciably modified in
some secret way, and isn't the wrong make or model among other
things.
(6) A suitable listening environment. It can't be too dull, too
bright, too noisy, too echoey, too harsh; the speakers and other
components have to be sufficiently clean, etc., etc.
(7) The listeners need to be in a good mood for listening, in good
physical condition (no blocked-up ears!), and be well-trained for
hearing artifacts in reproduced sound.
(8) Sample levels need to be matched to each other or else the
listeners will perceive differences that are due to simple volume
differences.
(9) Non-audible influences need to be controlled so that the listener
reaches his conclusions due to "Just listening". (This requirement
is met by DBTs)
> If you are sufficiently convinced that
> there will be no difference, it doesn't matter what is playing or
how
> good the ancillary equipment- you will reliably hear no difference
> and the DBT won't do a thing to call you a liar.
It is unlikely that this will be a problem if the "9 Requirements"
stated above, are met.
Arny Krueger
<clip areas of agreement>
> But, if your reproducer is producing equal or more of what you
> describe as "audible" distortions, then how can you expect to hear
> the effects of distortions that are *less* than the distortion of
> your reproducer?
The purpose of the listening tests posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm is to establish that the
listener is capable of hearing very subtle differences that are at or
near the threshold of audibility. If the test environment has noise
or distortion that masks a variety of linear and nonlinear
distortions that are known to be audible, but at or near the
threshold of audibility, then the listener will not be able to
complete http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm without upgrading
his listening environment.
> In the simplest terms this is my main objection to the published
> tests that I have read so far. Ok?
Hence the need for a means to qualify listeners and listening
environments such as the one provided at
http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .
ITU recommendation BS 1116-1 is another approach to the same basic
problem.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> BEAR <bear...@netzero.net> writes:
>> >SOTA equipment is *required* to do *any* meaningful tests as far as
>> >what the limits of audibility are (and then only to the extent that
>> >today's SOTA will permit). Why is this difficult to grasp?
>>
>> It's not at all difficult to grasp, and neither is the reason why you
>> are desperately trying to avoid answering the question. *You* claim
>> that cables are audible, so *you* must have heard this for yourself,
>> right? So, what do *you* consider to be a SOTA system on which the
>> rest of us can hear these differences? It's not a difficult question
>> Randy, but you seem to be desperately trying to avoid answering it. I
>> wonder why?
>>
>
>BECAUSE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TOM's PUBLISHED PAPER!!
Actually, it's about your 'critique' of Tom's paper. So far, you have
signally failed to show *any* backup for your criticism.
>> >That's another question... the question at hand is Tom's paper's
>> >conclusions and validity. Right?
>>
>> No, the question at hand is your claims regarding Tom's paper, and
>> your attempts to weasel out of your criticism that Tom was using
>> 'substandard' gear in his tests, while refusing to say what you would
>> consider to adequate to hearv the differences that you claim exist.
>> Put up, or shut up.
>
>I said it, SOTA equipment. That means the *very best* that is
>available today by objective measurement. Period. Anything less runs
>the risk of having the artifacts of the system itself mask the very
>things that intended to be tested.
>
>If you want to start a thread on WHAT BRANDS and MODELS are SOTA
>equipment today, start THAT thread.
No Randy, *you* claimed that Tom's equipment was substandard, so *you*
provide a list of gear which *you* consider adequate to hear
differences that *you* claim to exist. Otherwise, you're just blowing
smoke, as usual.
Ed Seedhouse
> However, there is NOTHING in DBT that can overcome bias that a
>difference does NOT exist. If you are sufficiently convinced that
>there will be no difference, it doesn't matter what is playing or how
>good the ancillary equipment- you will reliably hear no difference
>and the DBT won't do a thing to call you a liar.
This is only true if the biased person is the only one tested. If,
however, we test more than one person, and if the results from those
others show a difference beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the biased
person is so informed, then if he is rational would have to accept
that as strong evidence that there was indeed a difference. The test
therefore has the power to change any rational person's mind in either
direction, depending on the results, if more than one person is
tested.. Of course, if a person is irrational then no test is going
to make any difference anyway.
Chris Johnson
> Nousaine wrote:
>> I've tested hundreds of loudspeakers, built dozens of them, currently own the
>> only low frequency system in the world that can do 120-dB SPL @ 2-meters <10%
>> harmonic distortion over a 12-62 Hz bandwidth. AFAIK that's the current state
>> of the art for subwoofers. Yet it seems to miss your standard by quite a bit.
>> How do you do it? Can you point me to a commercially available system that
>> meets your spec?
>
> No. That's NOT my role. I offered a critique of your paper consisting
> of plausible deficits in your JAES published preprint. IF this is the
> best available subwoofer today, then it is by *definition* the SOTA
> subwoofer (assuming of course, that power and bandwidth are the only
> critieria). Simple enough, eh??
And of course, they are not- at least, given certain techniques of
measuring harmonic distortion, they are not. I think I remember
Nousaine mentioning this uber-subwoofer before, and was duly
impressed. I still am, on the level of sheer sound output capacity,
which I consider very important in a subwoofer that expects to
produce seriously low bass cleanly. (Am I right that this uses 18s?)
However, in the area of SOTA I must immediately become interested in
the time response of the system, which has a huge effect on the
discrimination of subtle sonic cues.
This is also the exact reason the speakers referred to in the
paper are inadequate- Bear has identified them as speakers that use a
(motorola?) piezo tweeter. It's very difficult to get a piezo element
to perform up to SOTA standards even if you build the drivers
yourself, as I do- if this is a stock Motorola part, it is
impossible. The response is peaky, but that's not the whole story-
what _really_ kills the part for discriminatory listening is time
domain issues. Such a tweeter 'rings', badly, over a broad range of
frequencies. This is like a coat of paint over whatever you're trying
to discriminate- it tends to make things sound the same, adding a
layer of blur over the sound. Even if the response curve with test
tones is reasonably well behaved, the unit will be very compromised
in terms of distinguishing differences in signals. In fact, that is
the single area that it will be most compromised in.
Bear doesn't want to go around specifying 'SOTA' components, but I
can specify components that would at least make it less hard to
distinguish these types of subtleties- the key issue is overhang and
great high frequency extension. As such, electrostatics and planar
drivers come into their own, because with some such designs, overhang
of sound is minimal compared to typical box speakers. I would first
suggest the original Martin-Logan CLSes, and also the center-driven
Sumo Aria (later became Museatex Melior). Magnepans may also be
suitable for this. I'm not sure how well suited Quads would be.
Martin-Logan CLS IIs are said to be rounder and less intensely bright
than the original CLSes, and would be more fun to listen to but less
useful for these purposes. Finally, you could always try speakers
that don't sound that nice but are famous for resolving power, such
as the original ProAc Tablettes (if I remember correctly?).
Does that help at all, or do we still have a problem? The last
thing you should be worrying about is evenness of frequency response.
For this type of work, you want a time-domain behavior and
high-frequency extension that slams any _genuine_ differences in your
face, even if the resulting presentation is less than lovely. Since
detailed analysis of time-domain behavior, much less ability to throw
a stable and holographic soundstage image, is not the commonest thing
in objectivist review, you have to resort to the subjective camp for
the necessary tools to do the objectivist thing- in this case, the
quality you'd be looking for is equipment that throws such an
intensely holographic, stunning image that it's rather fatiguing, or
alternately stuff that is said to be extremely revealing of other
minor changes in the system. I suspect the original Martin-Logan
CLSes would do nicely.
Chris Johnson
Nousaine
>Nousaine wrote:
>
>> BEAR bear...@netzero.net wrote:
>>
>> >To both the previous posters on this subject:
>> >
>> >Do some research to find out which components meet the SOTA criteria
>> >today - the goal is to be exactly what I said "as close as today's
>> >technology comes..."
>> >
>> >Why is that hard to comprehend??
>> >
>> >What has been suggested so far is akin to making generalizations
>> >about race car performance based upon the abilities of drivers and
>> >cars from some years ago, or even today's cars & drivers, but drawn
>> >from less than the *best* that run today! Absurd, isn't it? The
>> >maximum performance *is* the maximum - anything less is *less*.
>>
>> Hey you owe all of us a reference for a <1% distortion loudspeaker with a
>250
>> kHz bandwidth and 145-dB capability don't you think?
>
>No.
>
>I said, and I REPEAT:
>
> " as close as today's technology comes.."
>
> In case you missed reading that, one more time:
>
> "as close as today's technology comes.."
>
> Ok, now?
OK once again. How close is that? What level of performance, based on
your personal experience, will get me to a point where I (or you) can
"hear" nominally competent speaker wires and interconnects? What did
you use for your experiments?
>> I've tested hundreds of loudspeakers, built dozens of them, currently own
>the
>> only low frequency system in the world that can do 120-dB SPL @ 2-meters
><10%
>> harmonic distortion over a 12-62 Hz bandwidth. AFAIK that's the current
>state
>> of the art for subwoofers. Yet it seems to miss your standard by quite a
>bit.
>> How do you do it? Can you point me to a commercially available system that
>> meets your spec?
>
>No. That's NOT my role. I offered a critique of your paper consisting
>of plausible deficits in your JAES published preprint. IF this is the
>best available subwoofer today, then it is by *definition* the SOTA
>subwoofer (assuming of course, that power and bandwidth are the only
>critieria). Simple enough, eh??
>
>>
>>
>> If not I'd guess your SOTA standards cannot be met with current loudspeaker
>> technology and therefore you have not verified your own claims of
>differences
>> because the reference equipment required doesn't exist. Is that about it?
>
>No, read from the top again...
>
>--
> _-_-bearlabs
OK once again. What equipment can you suggest is good enough that is
available today?
Note to general population. Randy has claimed that the equipment used
in "Can You Trust Your Ears" was not of high enough quality to
resolve the kid of differences he is referring to .... ones that are
audible but cannot be resolved by current measurements.
He may be right. For purposes of that experiment it doesn't matter
because the test measured the tendency of people report differences
when presentation were objectively identical. He did provide a short
set of "SOTA" specifications that no known audio system can meet and
then changed that to "as close as you can get ..." to them.
But now when asked to provide equipment suitable for verification of
his claim he refuses. I, for one, will stop walking down this street.
It's obvious he has no real criteria and that the claim has not been
verified with bias-controlled listening tests. Further discussion
seems unnecessary.
BEAR
Are the Krell amps SOTA? Are they better or equal to any of the other
contenders to SOTA?
Let's be specific now - which Krell would you like to disect? Yours??
:- )
Ok, YOURS.
Let's haul out the Stereophile tests of that amp, oookay? Then you
post them here... we can start with that.
I'll give you credit for current capability in advance - the Krell
just MIGHT have the greatest output stage current capability for an
audio amplifier made for
consumer use ever. Also, therefore might have among the lowest
pre-feedback output impedances. But maybe *not* the lowest damping
factor. Hmmm...
But let's see what you post about the other specs... that's a good
place to start.
Regards,
_-_-bear
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
--
_-_-bearlabs
"...engineering is more of an approximation than physics..."
<--- jes fer Stew!
BEAR
I do not believe that I said that.
I may have said that there are no measurement methods that correlate
well to perceived differences... somewhat different.
In effect, therefore, in practice, as a result, there may be things
that are heard that are not correlated to any specific measurements,
or group of measurements, or vice-versa. I said "may." Which means
that there are undoubtedly things that are measured that are not
correleated to changes in sound perceived. Is that clear? Sensible?
Ok with you?
On the other hand there are things that are measured and DO correlate
to known effects in percieved sound... oh my!
If you can find a quote that says otherwise, please produce it.
>
>
> >> >I'll define SOTA as being as close as today's technology comes to
> >> >0.000001% THD, 0.000001%IM, 1-250khz +/1 0.01dB, max SPL/1m = 145dB.
> >> >Ok? Good enough? Read what I wrote: "as close as today's technology
> >> >comes to..."
> >> >That's *what* State Of The Art *means.*
>
> Hey Randy I still want to know the availablity of that loudspeaker
> with 250 kHz bandwidth and 145-dB 1meter capability.
That's the damn target. I'll stop responding if you're going to play
dumb.
Right, I'm sorry, it's not "bogus." It's a real test article.
Dunno.
If you want to start a thread about that issue, then do so - I'll
respond when the
topic IS that issue. So far no one wants to address the topic at hand
- the JAES preprint.
Not the topic, sorry.
That's a slimy debate tactic.
Today's thread says: "JAES PREPRINT CRITIQUED"
which you and everyone else has avoided dealing with that reality so far.
And to repeat for the umpteenth time - the problem is that the
measurements which are *very* sensitive do not at this time correlate
to what is heard in many cases. Correlation to perception is a major
issue - if they correlated, there would be predictivity, and there
isn't. Unless, of course, you say *in effect* that there are NO
audible differences in practice (with reasonably good equipment
<---implied).
IN WHICH CASE, I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT THE MEASURED THRESHOLD(s) IS FOR
THIS TO BE TRUE??? <--- my slimy debate tactic! :- )
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >SO, there is no
> >> >> >way to take the results of the published tests and generalize them -
> >> >> >as so many here on rahe seem to enjoy doing.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not so much a matter of generalising what tests do exist, as of
> >> >> there being *zero* tests to prove the bullshit claims of the snake oil
> >> >> merchants at Cardas, MIT, Tara labs etc.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, I am not in the snake oil business - I make ZERO claims of the
> >> >sort that you allude to. Please do NOT lump me, or my position in
> >> >with anyone else's - thank you.
>
> So what are your claims then? Please be specific.
I claim exactly what I wrote at the top of this thread. Please
review, and then comment on the merits of that critique of YOUR
tests, published opinions, and published conclusions.
--
_-_-bearlabs
"...engineering is still approximation, and Francisco Franco is
still dead..."