Little Comment
_Dejan_
I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
about CD Players.
Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall. I have
nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
maybe i am crazy, who know?
Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
another way.
Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention
Ban
Dejan, it might seem what you imagine about high-end is *not* fulfilled
here. OTOH a lot of the contributers have really very good sounding gear at
home and know what they are talking about. A few even write articles in
mags. Many are engineers or sound engineers.
So it seems it is maybe you who has to drop a few of your believes and
preconcepts. It is quite a long way after all this indoctrination, but with
your post you have started the inquiry. Go on.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Steven Sullivan
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK, i
> respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking. I am
> very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end", especially
> because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.
First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the same',
without some sort of qualification of that claim.
Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind testing to be
*critical* enough?
> I have
> nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music from
> MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that. Maybe are
> my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste different, or
> maybe i am crazy, who know?
Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when differences
are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
'fooling' factors.
> Really guys, in this group i dont see high-end, except in the title.
> Or maybe "High End" meaning something else today (Like "Hi-Fi" in the past),
> maybe it's time to find new expression for true High End.
First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.
> ...and for finish, please, dont catch me wrong, i dont want to underestimate
> nobody, i really like to hear another thinkings (although different then
> mine), but i just want to say something what i think, especially because i
> dont see large activity in this group, and because are my thinkings on
> another way.
> Greeting, sorry if i say somethig wrong, i dont have bad intention
If skepticism bothers you, there are plenty of audio discussion groups that
are less tolerant of it -- e.g. www.audioasylum.com.
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Uptown Audio
usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
pathetic.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"_Dejan_" <BRISIOV...@net.hr> wrote in message
news:d5ujh...@news2.newsguy.com...
David E. Bath
Uptown Audio <uptow...@rev.net> writes:
> That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
> usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
> product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
> on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
> turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
> than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does. It is disrupting the
> group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
> In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
> hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
> pathetic.
As one of the moderators, I feel the need to point out this section of
the guidelines, something that has been there since before I began
moderating in 1997:
2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio
The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is
a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or
b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or
c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).
Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.
Products from mass-market corporations are less likely to be
considered high end insofar as such mass-market gear is designed
with apparent priority on things other than absolute sound quality.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-.- David Bath (rec.audio.high-end moderation team)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
nab...@hotmail.com
> That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
> usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any
high-end
> product.
For your information, this list does not exist to promote your product
line.
> What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
> on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
> turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs
more
> than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.
This is just nonsense. First of all, the posting rules forbid "jumping"
on people who want to discuss any product. We do tend to jump on people
who want to advance pseudoscientific theories for why some products
*seem* to sound better than others. Sorry if that's bad for business.
> It is disrupting the
> group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
audio.
> In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
> hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
> pathetic.
Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
read exactly what you want to read. Try www.audiogon.com, where only
scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated. Or the Asylum,
where "legendary audio designers" can be found extolling the virtues of
the "Intelligent Chip." You might be happier there. Why put up with us
if we cause you so much agita?
bob
nab...@hotmail.com
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here,
especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
i
> respect opinions from all, but others maybe have different thinking.
I am
> very surprised whit name of this group "rec.audio.high-end",
especially
> because from expression HIGH-END i expect something more criticall.
This newsgroup is called rec.audio.high-end for historical reasons.
"High end" is and probably always was a marketing term. "High end"
refers to products designed and marketed to appeal to people who care a
lot about the quality of audio reproduction--as opposed to people who
just want something to play their music on.
Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.
You won't find out much information about that science on other
Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either banned
entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
perspective.
Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
the speakers inthe room.
> I have
> nothing against peoples what thinking that is the same hear music
from
> MustekDVD or CoplandCD-player for example, but i dont think that.
Maybe are
> my ears better, maybe i listen different music, or is my taste
different, or
> maybe i am crazy, who know?
Your ears aren't better, and you are not crazy. I don't know about
those two disk players, and it may be that one or the other is
defective or poorly designed in some way that makes it sound different
from the other. But it is also quite likely that they sound different
to you for one of the following reasons:
1. One is playing louder than the other.
2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.
And no, #2 isn't crazy. It's normal. All of us are subject to this sort
of illusion. (It's like the aural equivalent of an optical illusion.)
But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that they
aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.
bob
Uptown Audio
accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
"generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
from participating or even from being able to read anything of
interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
"cables" or DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about
amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
"David E. Bath" <david...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:d60ej...@news1.newsguy.com...
Harry Lavo
that many people here think all players sound the same. And you think they
are discussing not-very-high-end gear. I believe you will find that there
are many who read this group who feel the same way...but are intimidated
to speak out. I wish more would venture to speak
up and say what John Atkinson did at the New York Show...he was once an
objectivist who took part in a test of amps, came to the conclusion the
tests were wrong when he found he couldn't live with a piece of gear that he
bought based on that test (that drew a "null" in the blind test), and
concluded there was a "big" difference when listened to normally over time.
I've owned five different CD players myself (currently use three), and have
auditioned another two at my brother-in-law's house on a system I know well.
Of the seven, only two have sounded alike. And they are decent but not
outstanding CD players. In addition, I have an outboard dejitterer and
high-end DAC attached to one player and while the timbral balance between it
and the player are very similar (leading to "no difference" if one listens
only briefly, casually, and superficially) the outboard unit has more depth,
dimensionality, and definition if one listens at all closely. And
interestingly enough, after about an hour of listening to the CD player
alone, I lose interest. But through the DAC I can listen to two, three,
four CD's one after the other without my attention flagging too much.
Stewart Pinkerton
>That is absolutely true. It defies logic why on earth some of the
>usual suspects post here at all as they only try and slam any high-end
>product. What is worse is that they monitor the group daily and jump
>on anyone that wants to talk about a high-end amplifier, CD player,
>turntable, you name it. They just can't stand anything that costs more
>than $300 no matter who makes it or what it does.
That is utterly untrue. You have *never* seen any of the so-called
'objectivsist' objecting to expensive loudspeakers, or indeed
expensive turntables. Both (especially turntables) involve extremely
precise mechanical engineering, which will never be cheap.
CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.
> It is disrupting the
>group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end audio.
Sure there are - just not about some of the overpriced dross which can
be found in 'high end' audio stores.
>In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
>hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
>pathetic.
That's rubbish, and if you didn't own a 'high end' audio store, you'd
recognise that.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Harry Lavo
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]
<nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d62g8...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Uptown Audio wrote:
>snip<
> > It is disrupting the
> > group to the point where there are no more posts about high-end
> audio.
> > In other words, the "moderators" have allowed certain individuals to
> > hijack the group, thread by thread, against it's own charter. It is
> > pathetic.
>
> Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
> read exactly what you want to read. Try www.audiogon.com, where only
> scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated. Or the Asylum,
> where "legendary audio designers" can be found extolling the virtues of
> the "Intelligent Chip." You might be happier there. Why put up with us
> if we cause you so much agita?
Probably because he feels that he has as much right to be there as you do,
and resists being "driven away". This group has the potential to be the
best on the web...except "opposing views" are not tolerated, and a certain
cadre here seem unable to let any post go by that they might comment on, if
it contains anything the least bit objectionable to their world view. That
is what makes it so disheartening to so many that they leave. It is also
why this same group and others like them have been "banned" (or at least
their topics) from many other moderated groups. Not because their views
can't be tolerated in proper doses, but because these views are "pushed" to
the point of obnoxiousness bordering on harassment to others in the
newsgroups.
The behavior of this small self-selected group suggests an attitude of "we
are right; you are wrong; and we will continue to challenge you until either
you agree, shut up, or leave." When what would simply suffice in many cases
(especially newbies) would be a simple "Here is the issue. Here are the
opposing points of view. This has been discussed in this forum many times.
We suggest you simply search the archives on Google for threads including
"xxx", "xxx", "xxx".) Then lets talk further after you've read them and
reached your own conclusion." I'd suggest we all start practicing it and
try to make the forum a little better than it has been.
out...@city-net.com
listened to those bits of gear long enough to have come to the conclusion
and are now satisfied you can now detect one from another, you are also
now in the perfect place to do the blind tests using them.
Steven Sullivan
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]
Uptown Audio <uptow...@rev.net> wrote:
> That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
> accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
> of their price class and is used in every industry. Hi-Fi is what the
> guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair enough for people to
> have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and what is not, it is a
> bore and completely out of place however to see the same posts about
> the same crap over and over even when it is not brought up. Even
> though people may have very different ideas about what is and what is
> not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast beating here is
> more than disruptive. It prevents anyone with any interest in what is
> "generally accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi
> from participating or even from being able to read anything of
> interest. As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully
> someone who has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up
> "cables" or DBT and usually both.
Actually, the moderators *don't* let us usual suspects do that. ;>
> The topic may have been about
> amplifiers, but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going
> down the same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous.
> If that is the way everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It
> is a waste of time. I move that another group be started or chartered
> with new guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the
> nuts and is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
Speaking of rutted paths....we've been downt his one before too.
That reminds me, I haven't seen visited the yahoo RAHE meta-discussion
group in ages....
David E. Bath
It is the definition used by this group for many years, and it is not
likely to change. We have had an unwritten rule against any intrusion
of Objectivism into pure equipment discussions. But once the
non-objectivists move the discussion into the objectivist realm, then
all bets are off. If you can find any case where this was not true in
the last few years, please bring it to the rahe-discuss list as that
is our forum for discussing any moderation policy types of topics.
As to creating a new group, that is up to you and any others of a like
mind to go to news.groups and start the new group creation effort. I
suggest you read the FAQs there about the process first. Also, the
idea of creating such a group has been proposed several times now and
has yet to get past the idea phase. Check the rec.audio.moderated
(RAM) discussions in rec.audio. opinion to see what happened the last
time.
This discussion is now ended here and if anyone else feels the need to
continue it they will have to do so on rahe-discuss per the
guidelines.
Andrew Haley
rahe-discuss per the guidelines. -- deb ]
Uptown Audio writes:
> That's fine if that is the way you want to define it, but it is not
> accurate. High-end is a well known descriptor for products in the top
> of their price class and is used in every industry.
Hold on now. To start with, this is a user forum and we don't have to
care at all what labels marketroids put on things.
Also, I dispute your definition of "high end": in my experience it
defines the highest performance equipment, not necessarily the most
expensive. This is how the phrase is used in computing, for example:
"high-end floating-point performance at PC prices."
> Hi-Fi is what the guidelines attempt to describe. As it is fair
> enough for people to have any view they choose on what is hi-fi and
> what is not, it is a bore and completely out of place however to
> see the same posts about the same crap over and over even when it
> is not brought up.
Not everyone finds it boring. I find the dissent from the suffocating
orthodoxy of the Hi-Fi press refreshing. If there was such dissent in
the Hi-Fi magazines they would be a hell of a lot more interesting and
relevant, and I might even buy them.
There are some serious issues here. If what the skeptics say is true,
a large part of the Hi-Fi industry, with the connivance of the Hi-Fi
press, is not acting in the best interests of their customers. That
is, to say the least, an interesting idea. And very relevant to this
newsgroup.
> Even though people may have very different ideas about what is and
> what is not hi-fi, the continual changing of topic and cheast
> beating here is more than disruptive.
That's Usenet. It's quite reasonable to expect people talking very
expensive cables or very expensive CD players to say "it doesn't
matter." That's a perfectly reasonable response. It's one you
disagree with, so feel free to do so.
> It prevents anyone with any interest in what is "generally
> accepted" (hell I love getting that one in!) as being Hi-Fi from
> participating or even from being able to read anything of
> interest.
It doesn't at all. It's not like people are shouting above others: if
you don't like a post, skip it.
> As every time one of the usual suspects wants to bully someone who
> has or is interested in a nice system, they bring up "cables" or
> DBT and usually both. The topic may have been about amplifiers,
> but that does not stop the relentless badgering from going down the
> same rutted path every time. It is ridiculous. If that is the way
> everyone wants it, then fine and good riddence. It is a waste of
> time.
This is the place -- the only place that I am aware of -- where both
sides of the argument get to have their say in a reasonable
environment. It's not the bear pit of RAO.
> I move that another group be started or chartered with new
> guidelines or moderators, otherwise this place is for the nuts and
> is of no more use to high-end or hi-fi than RAO...
It's useful to me, and to everyone else who is happy to hear both
sides of the story. I guess you would prefer not to be challenged by
some of the more capable people here. I can understand that.
Andrew.
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> -Excuse me for bad english-
> I don't know what to say after i read certain comments here, especially
> about CD Players.
> Many peoples here says that all CD-players sounds same, i can say OK,
The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly the
bits on the CD. That leaves the DAC as the possible cause for sonic
differences (and that, only if you are not connecting the CD player
digitally to the receiver).
This was posted by Arny Krueger in another group:
:> Many built-in DAC's are cheap, cheap, cheap.
: Despite their low prices, they are often up to the task at hand. Here
: are the measured performance specs for the DAC in a $39 DVD player - a
: Apex AD 1201:
: Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.07, -0.05
: Noise level, dB (A): -95.2
: Dynamic range, dB (A): 95.0
: THD, %: 0.0012
: IMD, %: 0.002
: Stereo crosstalk, dB:-92.9
I found it a bit strange that the test was not from 20 Hz to 20 kHz,
but then I found another (older) post with this:
| Frequency response +0.10 -0.16 dB 20-20 KHz into a 5.6 K load.
| Zero signal noise -95 dB A-weighted, -94 dB unweighted
| Dynamic range 96 dB A-weighted 93 dB unweighted
| THD 0.001%
| THD+N A-weighted 0.007%
| THD+N 0.007% unweighted
| IM (18 & 20 KHz) 0.003%
Note that the theoretical performance from 16bit PCM is
20* log(65536) ~= 96.33 dB
So the most expensive CD player in the world won't be able to improve
significantly this performance. Of course there are other qualities that
matter on a CD player, like mechanical noise, durability, ergonomics, etc..
In the case of DVD-Audio (20 or 24 bit, so 120 dB or 144 dB theoretically)
or SACD (about 120 dB on the audio band) things are somewhat different,
because the analog parts can't approach the theoretical limits, so one
can expect some differences between models.
For instance the very recent Yamaha DV-657:
DA Converter 24 bit
Signal-Noise (1 kHz) 110 dB
Dynamic range (1 kHz) 100 dB
Distortion and Noise (1 kHz) 0.003 %
The Pioneer DV-575A:
S/N ratio 115 dB
Dynamic range 101 dB
Total harmonic distortion 0.0020 %
Or the Yamaha DV-2500:
Signal-Noise Ratio 115 dB
Dynamic Range 103 dB (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)
Total Harmonic Distortion (1 kHz) 0.0017 % (DVD 48 kHz 24 bit)
So there are _measurable_ differences between 24 bit players. But:
1 - Most amplifiers have worse signal/noise than this.
2 - The original performance probably has more noise than this.
3 - Human hearing is limited, so many people think that the
96 dB of CD are enough ("perfect sound forever" was the
original marketing slogan for the CD).
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
_Dejan_
news:d5vpf...@news2.newsguy.com...
> First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
same',
> without some sort of qualification of that claim.
From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
because peoples often really say this
> Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
testing
> to be
> *critical* enough?
Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
conclusion is important long term hearing. It would be nice to make
long
blind test, but this is hard to make. Usual blind test often make
confuse,
this can be interesting, but not necessarily usefull. Many factors are
here,
for example maybe in that moment person dont think like after good
sleep, so results can be very different. I know this because i like
DIY, when i make something different i often dont know it is better or
not, but in another time things in my head can be totaly different.
> Well, we do know that human perception is easily fooled when
differences
> are in fact small, or nonexistant. So if we want to verify that what
> we think we hear is real, we have to take measures to account for the
> 'fooling' factors.
Like i say, i like DIY, for example i can hear PSU snubbers in my
circuits. But i can't meassure them in otput signal.
> First, define what you mean by 'true High End'.
Oh, sorry i dont want define this. But for sure this is not CD-Player
for 9$. Last what i try with this price have left channel louder then
another. This talk enough to me. Or maybe i dont have luck. I can try
again.
Greetings
_Dejan_
discussing to match because i speak english like a Tarzan. I say
something for start, and now i leave finish to somebody else.
Greetings
Dejan, Croatia
...this i write before, but somebody dont like my thinking, and this
message you cant read in news group. Now i see that i must say more.
You say engineers. Hm. Read all, and you may see what i think about
this. After all this i am a little angry, and up to finish less polite.
Sadly.
[Moderator's note: The post he refers to was not posted due to the use
of an invalid address which is not allowed per the guidelines.
-- deb]
_Dejan_
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!
...in buisness is sometimes hard enjoy, i know, i wish you luck
Cheers
Petrovic Dejan
_Dejan_
> Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
> doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
> different--than mass-market products. And there are good scientific
> reasons to expect that many "high-end" amps, CD players, and wires do
> not sound any different than mass-market alternatives.
You must to learn a lot about this science, believe me
> You won't find out much information about that science on other
> Internet discussion boards, because the topic is usually either
banned
> entirely or tightly constrained. And you won't find that scientific
> perspective in the high-end magazines, because it would be very, very
> bad for business. So consider yourself lucky that you have happened
> upon one of the few places where you actually can get that scientific
> perspective.
Again, this is not scientific perspective!!!
> But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate
on
> the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> the speakers inthe room.
Aleluja! Placement of the speakers in the room? I am surprised that you
care
about this
> But it is also quite likely that they sound different
> to you for one of the following reasons:
> 1. One is playing louder than the other.
> 2. You expect them to sound different, and expectation can fool us.
Now you realy make me idiot. Obviously i AM crazy. From your scientific
perspective i expect much more.
> But if you compare them without knowing which is which, can you still
> tell them apart? If not, then there's good reason to believe that
they
> aren't really audibly different, even if they seem to be.
Who say this? I not! It IS different! Often drastical! But not
necessarily, this is true.
...and it's true that are price often to large, but this is no reason
for bad informations. I simply say: Yes this is really good sound but i
dont have money for this. Science is not needed to say this. And if you
dont hear difference you must know: this is just your perspective. You
talking about silence, but you dont have proof that somebody dont hear.
And please, dont say now: blind test!
Dejan
chung
Of course, Harry is living proof that high-end discussions, in the
conventional way, are alive and kicking in this newsgroup.
Norman M. Schwartz
news:d62ii...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> CD players and amplifiers however, are a different matter. It remains
> a truism that, once you get past the very bottom of the market, the
> only time CD players or amps really do sound different is indeed in
> the 'high end' at stratospheric prices. Unfortunately, that difference
> is a deliberate *degradation* of the sound from the functional
> near-perfection which is ubiquitous in the mid-market.
>
not be unnecessarily large or heavy, do not emit sounds of their own (no
fans please), be up to the task of driving your "current" loudspeakers and
have lotsa reserve power, watts and current, and be up to the task of doing
so with any speakers which may lie in your future. If they satisfy all of
the above, their designers will most probably have assured that they will
sound good (neutral). I think if you choose accordingly you will be safe
(happy).
chung
Can you please stop top-posting? It makes it much less convenient to
follow the discussion.
BTW, isn't nice for the rest of us who are not dealers to find out what
some people really think about amplifiers and other high-end products? I
would think that this is very valuable information...
_Dejan_
> For your information, this list does not exist to promote your
product
> line.
I dont know nothing abouth shop "Uptown Audio" but i understand comment
from
Bill because bad informations threaten this buisness, often
unjustified.
> Then don't read it. There are other places on the Web where you can
> read exactly what you want to read.
I never before read this news group, and i must admit that is really
strange and fun. But i dont like when somebody ask for information, and
then only 3-4 person talking, only bad informations. This is reason why
i write this. Just for balance
Try www.audiogon.com, where only
> scientifically illiterate posts seem to be tolerated.
I dont see science here, i see only that many here talking about
science.
Dejan
out...@city-net.com
gear and not a theological system of thought. All the perspectives are in
the "high end" camp. There are other web discussion places where
discussion of testing to confirm perception is not allowed and I think
they are not "high end" but theologically correct places for the choir to
practice.
The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the origin of
the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound events.
It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides in the
brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the ears and
that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using what
are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing. The critical
area is how willing is one to accept that which seems to contridict normal
expectation and which is counter intuitive as commonly understood. Much
of science leads one to the counter intuitive which is the source of it
being rejected in many areas. We find repeated the same objections in
audio as in other areas which science leads to counter intuitive
perception.
That is itself an intresting scientific question. How is it that
astrology, esp, and a host of other areas find in common the same reasons
to reject the product of testing when it comes to answering questions.
The test is flawed, it can not measure in enough detail or the right
thing, doing the testing destroys the thing being eximaned, the context
where the item being tested is spoiled by the test method. the people
doing the test are biased, science can not explain all things and the item
is one such, scientific answers are proposed with no way to confirm their
reality or validity, and we could go on in listing the common ground where
belief held in common contrasts with testing results.
out...@city-net.com
and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.
The current state of listening alone tests confirms this. The 200k
dollar 5 watt amp with extra high distortion but highly touted is the flip
side of listening tests and confirms it also.
out...@city-net.com
And enjoy in the music, this is most important!"
Enjoying is the key, and the first step is to cure oneself of the "better
sound" is in the gear I don't currently have or can afford. In place of
which we can be highly assured that most audio gear now is a commodity
item except for speakers and the control of the space in which we place
them.
_Dejan_
charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.
This is just my illusion, i know.
Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
or something similar.
This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.
I give up and go to another place.
And sorry to all for bad words what i say.
Bye to all
Steven Sullivan
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:d5vpf...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > First, I'm not sure that anyone is saying 'all CD players sound the
> same',
> > without some sort of qualification of that claim.
> From what i read here in some threads, i simply make this conclussion
> because peoples often really say this
> > Second, you don't consider a standard of proof that requires blind
> testing
> > to be
> > *critical* enough?
> Blind test are not perfect! Blind test are relatively short, for good
> conclusion is important long term hearing.
<lots of similar misinformation snipped>
You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
You have a lot of learning to do.
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
_Dejan_
> Now just because products are aimed at that segment of the market
> doesn't mean that they will necessarily sound better--or even
> different--than mass-market products
Voice of ratinality from me: Yes, this is true. Really.
And many are insane expensive - this is not good. True.
From another side, many high-end products deserve attention!
But i dont talk about this.
Harry Lavo
> May I suggest that "high end" audio is a spread of notions about the same
> gear and not a theological system of thought. All the perspectives are in
> the "high end" camp. There are other web discussion places where
> discussion of testing to confirm perception is not allowed and I think
> they are not "high end" but theologically correct places for the choir to
> practice.
>
By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm belief in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.
> The differences arise as to how to answer questions about the origin of
> the perceptions we have when experiencing reproduction of sound events.
> It is equally valid to suggest that much of the perception resides in the
> brain and does not exist until after the signal has reached the ears and
> that perspective is one that commends itself well to testing using what
> are routine approaches in all other areas of human testing.
Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions...is the salt level correct, is
the sweetness correct, how do they affect preference, etc. The tests were
blinded to eliminate differences in color or appearance, often because we
were dealing with prototypes that were not fully developed. But when it
came to evaluating the overall appeal of the product, with the decision on
the line to go to test marketing (and therefore spend a lot of money and
expose the product to the competition) we always used monadic testing among
samples of no less than 300 people. Therefore a simple test might involve
600 people (test and control). A complex test could involve twice that
many. The were blind (what we call "white box" but they were not
comparative). They were used/eaten in the environment of normal use, and
were rated after. Something similar would be a big step forward in audio
evaluation vs. DBt. I can't speak for othe subjectivists, but I know I (and
at least some others) simply want appropriate testing rather than
inappropriate testing. .
The critical
> area is how willing is one to accept that which seems to contridict normal
> expectation and which is counter intuitive as commonly understood. Much
> of science leads one to the counter intuitive which is the source of it
> being rejected in many areas. We find repeated the same objections in
> audio as in other areas which science leads to counter intuitive
> perception.
>
This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable testing
proceedures used as a blind article of faith.
> That is itself an intresting scientific question. How is it that
> astrology, esp, and a host of other areas find in common the same reasons
> to reject the product of testing when it comes to answering questions.
> The test is flawed, it can not measure in enough detail or the right
> thing, doing the testing destroys the thing being eximaned, the context
> where the item being tested is spoiled by the test method. the people
> doing the test are biased, science can not explain all things and the item
> is one such, scientific answers are proposed with no way to confirm their
> reality or validity, and we could go on in listing the common ground where
> belief held in common contrasts with testing results.
The reasons you cite barely apply to the areas you consider suspect.
Perhaps ESP comes closest to being a fit. Astrology or religion hardly
qualify at all. How does a test "destroy" Astrology, for example. Or
religion? No, we are talking "faith" vs. "faith"...only your faith is in
uncritical acceptance of DBT'ng.
_Dejan_
news:d65k6...@news3.newsguy.com...
I allready say that i give up, but i am here again, ah.
I see sense in your words and i respect your words. But this is not so
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind
out...@city-net.com
simple. Believe me, i see many things. I dont want be part of one or
another extrem. This is problem here, you guys are EXTREM. I can accept
some things, but not all. I am lucky that i dont need to buy amps and
speakers. Everyone can make this if know something about electronic.
And i try many things. Often i expect a lot, sometimes not, and results
are not always like i expect. This is important! Theory about
foolishnes is here very weak. Some amps really make change sound! For
me this is so obviously that i really dont know what to say here and
how to response. You have your believes i have mine. And then we have
short-circuit. I dont want this. I try dont look further here, and
maybe sometime all we find on same wavelenght in better frame of mind"
It is easy to make an amp sound different and the electrical parameters by
which to do so are well known. For those amps not trying to sound
different but to only increase the signal as faithfully as it enters the
amp we have become so successful as to have created a commodity market.
In a large series of tests when the obvious and well known amp differences
are controlled,ie. frequency response and staying within it's power supply
design goals, by using listening alone they cann't be distinguished one
from another. People who did accept that such amps can sound different
and say they experience it on a common basis find that using listening
alone they cann't distinguish the amps. That is the benchmark of data and
experience from which we can have such a discussion by asking the question
- why do the differences said to exist and be heard disappear when
listening alone testing is done?
_Dejan_
> This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category.
Style
> and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it
comes to
> neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of
exclusive
> membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
> satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined
therefrom.
> The current state of listening alone tests confirms this. The 200k
> dollar 5 watt amp with extra high distortion but highly touted is the
flip
> side of listening tests and confirms it also.
Yes, 200k is really to much. I never heard something so expensive, so i
cant comment this sound.
BUT, you are extreme in your examples. And now i make next conclusion:
Maybe you so are so sceptic to expensive things, that are now your
brain into foolishnes. Similar like my brain, just opposite. Its
simple, similar scientific formula: I see that is expensive, so it must
be good. You see that is expensive, so must be crap (because is
expensive!). Now i am scientific.
This is maybe joke from me, maybe not, welcome to the world of
foolisnhes!
And maybe you think that you have proof with your blind test, but this
is not so simple like you think, with this you are just one step nearer
to more deeper foolishnes, but you dont understand this.
And imagine this foolishness: i dont speak english!
_Dejan_
news:d65ke...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> <lots of similar misinformation snipped>
>
> You really need to google search threads about blind testing here.
> You have a lot of learning to do.
I see that you are very disappoint.
Sorry, same about google i can say to you, but you dont need search
only blind tests. You can find a lot good informations (and bad
informations offcours, and be carfully like i - not naive). Maybe in
that way you find real science.
Known conclusion blind tests is that audio components like CD-Players
and amplifiers are not important for sound quality. This is reason why
i am not interested in your blind test.
And yes its true, i dont know if you have revolutionary new blind test,
and i dont have intention look for this in google because i find some
answers a long time ago and now this is not interesting to me, sorry
again.
I want to learn, but i dont want learn about your blind tests.
out...@city-net.com
in
DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
faithful to ever verify the test's applicability."
Science proceeds not by proving some thesis but by failing to disprove it.
The thesis at hand is that a benchmark of listening alone testing now
exists showing inability to distinguish amps, wire, etc. by listening
alone even and especially by those holding the contrary view. That, as
science, is what takes it outside the realm of belief system. Science to
support the contrary thesis would have to show a constant and continuing
failure, and thus disprove the thesis.
"Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts
of
time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
testing was use to answer simple questions..."
And we have before us the simple question of can by listening alone can
one bit of audio gear be distinguished from another, can a difference, any
difference be shown. That is is simple as it gets. Any other complex
attributes suggested to exist between gear is mute if the simple reality
of simple difference, any difference can not be demonstrated by listening
alone tests.
"
This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable
testing
proceedures used as a blind article of faith."
That is atestable thesis, we will look forward to the results. Such
testing is the bread and butter in all other areas of human testing. If
it isn't valid for audio then it is not valid anywhere else either and
many decades of research in humans will have to be tossed. So the
evidence for such an extraordinary claim that audio is an exception will
require some equally extraordinary demonstration. Astrology and esp etc.
make that exact same claim. Testing can hand has been done on such thing
with expected results. The same litany of excuses those folk propose for
their failure to demonstrate any reality to their claims is exactly the
same offered for those whose worldview is upset when listening alone
testing doesn't support their worldview.
_Dejan_
wrote in message news:d62un...@news2.newsguy.com...
>The digital part of the CD player should be able to read correctly
the...
> .../cut/...
>...Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Now i realised "science": You forget say that is largest distorsion
factor from speakers, so with this logic all others is not important.
Strange theory. Instead of rewriting technical characteristics
CD-Players it would be smarter to use brain or ears for change. Do you
listen music? Do you like music? Or, if you are technical directed, did
you ever see something more then numbers for S/N, dynamic range and
distortion? And what is really important for good sound? I see you
allready know all. I understand that to you all components have same
sound and i dont see nothing bad in this. But wrong is this: Do you
really think that are all audiophiles so foolish? If you something dont
see (dont hear), dont mean that this dont exist. Your omission, not
mine.
And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This is
only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have scientists,
so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how to achieve
this. I am very interested in this. You know much about CD-players,
maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line, bass reflex,
closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air coils,
ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single drive
speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you? Or
you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things can
be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and this is
not good. Sorry.
nab...@hotmail.com
> By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm
belief in
> DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
questions
> raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
measured....eg
> music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
> faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.
A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited psychology
department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.
Why in the world would we expect that the protocols of food testing
would be appropriate for audio testing, or pharmaceutical testing,
or...
bob
Stewart Pinkerton
>Yes, this is OK, but i heard amplifiers what have all this
>charactersitics, but i dont like them. I am again foolish probably.
>
>This is just my illusion, i know.
Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
many bad ones!
>Why scientists in this group dont unite mental power to make somethig
>useful, for example high efficient, compact and good sounding speaker,
>or something similar.
That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.
>This discussion is waste of energy, i am sad what i start this.
Sorry you feel that way, but it's hard to tell what is your position.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Ernst Raedecker
>This is why much "high end" gear is now in the commodity category. Style
>and electrical parameters and utility only seperates amps when it comes to
>neutral sound reproduction. Price is used to evoke an arena of exclusive
>membership about which all manner of subjective feelings of self
>satisfaction can be experienced and sound "quality" imagined therefrom.
Are these scientific remarks of yours? Do you have test results? Do
you have documentation? Lab reports?
Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."
Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about
"science" in a rather metaphysical way.
Ernesto.
"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."
Richard Feynman
Harry Lavo
> "By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm belief
> in
> DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of questions
> raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being measured....eg
> music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
> faithful to ever verify the test's applicability."
>
> Science proceeds not by proving some thesis but by failing to disprove it.
> The thesis at hand is that a benchmark of listening alone testing now
> exists showing inability to distinguish amps, wire, etc. by listening
> alone even and especially by those holding the contrary view. That, as
> science, is what takes it outside the realm of belief system. Science to
> support the contrary thesis would have to show a constant and continuing
> failure, and thus disprove the thesis.
>
It is bad science if it is the wrong test for it's purpose. In this case if
it is unable to include the emotional and right-brain aspects of musical
enjoyment in determining the difference. No matter how useful it may be
elsewhere in the audio field for developing codecs, listening for specific
audio cues, etc.
> "Sorry, I spent years in the food industry were we spent enormous amounts
> of
> time, energy, and intellectual capital on testing...much much more
> sophisticated than the testing you suggest. Simple blind comparative
> testing was use to answer simple questions..."
>
> And we have before us the simple question of can by listening alone can
> one bit of audio gear be distinguished from another, can a difference, any
> difference be shown. That is is simple as it gets. Any other complex
> attributes suggested to exist between gear is mute if the simple reality
> of simple difference, any difference can not be demonstrated by listening
> alone tests.
Not simple at all. We are evaluating how well the equipment under tests
reproduces a musical experience, measured against our life experience of how
live music sounds to us. And that involves an involuntary emotional
component that this is no evidence that quick-switch, comparative testing
can include.
> "
> This isn't a question of science. It is a question of questionable
> testing
> proceedures used as a blind article of faith."
>
> That is atestable thesis, we will look forward to the results. Such
> testing is the bread and butter in all other areas of human testing. If
> it isn't valid for audio then it is not valid anywhere else either and
> many decades of research in humans will have to be tossed.
Absolutely a false premise.
So the
> evidence for such an extraordinary claim that audio is an exception will
> require some equally extraordinary demonstration.
Except that it is not extraordinary because the assertion is based on a
false premise.
Harry Lavo
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where firm
> belief in
> > DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
> questions
> > raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
> measured....eg
> > music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by the
> > faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.
>
> A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited psychology
> department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.
Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test among
many....and there are very many variations of DBT'ng. The kind promoted
here...quick-switch, compartive DBT'ng...would not be used in many
situations and has not been validated as providing the same results as
blind, monadic testing among a large sample of audiophiles. Which by all
the underlying assumptions would be a test much less likely to interfere
with a true evaluation of musical accuracy, including unconscious emotional
reaction.
Because the underlying test techniques have strengths and weaknesses, and
must be chosen for the task at hand.
Obviously, there are implementation differences.
Harry Lavo
Are you speaking of Tom Nousaine's tests. That's the only "large set" of
dbt's of amps claiming no difference that I know of. And if I recall correc
tly, all we have is Tom's anecdotal telling of the results of those tests.
I don't recall they were ever published or even a white paper issued. Am I
wrong?
_Dejan_
> Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them.
The
> existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
> many bad ones!
Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE. I believe
that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
explain why is one amp better or not.
> That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
> to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
> efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
> with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.
Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same. Impossible
or not, it is more usefull.
Dejan Petrovic
nab...@hotmail.com
> <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d67tb...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > > By contrast, RAHE seems to me to be a theological place where
firm
> > belief in
> > > DBT's is aceepted as a "truth" for all purposes, regardless of
> > questions
> > > raised or a complete change in the nature of the item being
> > measured....eg
> > > music instead of sound....and I might add despite any attempt by
the
> > > faithful to ever verify the test's applicability.
> >
> > A cult religion apparently also embraced by every accredited
psychology
> > department in the country. Talk about brainwashing.
>
> Sorry, Bob. in those departments it is only one type of test among
> many
Sorry Harry. Perceptual psychologists would never use anything other
than a DBT for listening tests of partial loudness thresholds. And for
the umpteenth time, please note that your post referred to DBTs with no
qualifiers. If you want us to take you seriously, the very least you
could do is be precise in your language (or else stop complaining that
people are misinterpreting you).
Now, it is true that psychologists-and audio professionals--use various
forms of DBTs. It is NOT true that objectivists here insist on using
only one form of DBT. I'll be glad to give credence to any form of DBT
you can pull off. But I note that you still haven't pulled off any, and
you continue to insist that the only ones worth doing are impossible to
do. Very convenient.
Some people here recommend quick-switching ABX tests over other forms
of DBTs, and they do so for good reason. The scientific literature
demonstrates that such listening tests are more sensitive than those
that do not allow subjects to do proximate comparisons. A psychologist
would also typically use a quick-switching test to measure
thresholds--unless, of course, he were testing aural memory. So even if
you were to amend your original statement to add your usual qualifiers,
you would be wrong.
bob
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d67ug...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>> Possibly, or possibly there actually is something wrong with them. The
>> existence of many good amplifiers does not preclude the existence of
>> many bad ones!
>
>Yes, true! Of course! And this differences are often AUDIBLE.
Not among the good ones...........
> I believe
>that you think so too (but some persons here dont think so). This is
>only thing what is in this discussion important to me. I dont try here
>explain why is one amp better or not.
>
>> That's simple. Such a loudspeaker is physically impossible - if it is
>> to cover the full acoustic range. There are however many reasonably
>> efficient and very high quality 'minimonitors' which can be combined
>> with a good subwoofer to provide SOTA performance.
>
>Of course, but you understand me wrong! And i hope that you dont think
>that i give this yob to you. This long yob i grant to "scientific"
>persons what think that all CD-players and amps sound same.
The good ones do.
> Impossible
>or not, it is more usefull.
No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
_Dejan_
news:d67rj...@news3.newsguy.com...
> ............. People who did accept that such amps can sound
different
> and say they experience it on a common basis find that using
listening
> alone they cann't distinguish the amps.
The worst thing is that this work probably in that way. Fantastic
formula to cheat peoples. For me is enough hard only read this. Listen
can be only nightmare. I listen music to enjoy, not for test.
And i dont know all reasons why this metod dont work. I dont even know
how this work. This is not my job, and i dont care about this. Your job
is to find better solution (if you are so preoccupied with this)
because this solution obviously dont work. And then you can talk about
testing, not before.
So now, go to work!
Petrovic Dejan
out...@city-net.com
Or do I have to repeat Dejan's remark: "I do not see science here, I
only see talk about science."
Which is the only thing the objectivists are good at: talk about "science"
in a rather metaphysical way."
Review the archives of this group to see discussion of the testing over
several years that has been done. To make the question even more
intresting, a standing offer of around $6000 for wire, $10000 for amps,
$1000000 for some of the really fringe claims is available. In past
cycles of this question, either here or in another list there was mention
of similar offers in other countries for substantual sums, finland is one
that comes to mind but there were others also. We would be happy to
arrange to have you try for the money, and happy to add your datum point
to the set of examples where folk could not demonstrate that a difference
could be shown by listening alone blind testing. One discussed here in
some detail before was an audio store owner who thought his then top of
the line pass labs and an older yamaha in his store using his gear would
be a cake walk, not so.
out...@city-net.com
"It is bad science if it is the wrong test for it's purpose. In this
case if it is unable to include the emotional and right-brain aspects
of musical enjoyment in determining the difference. No matter how
useful it may be elsewhere in the audio field for developing codecs,
listening for specific audio cues, etc."
Irrelevant strawman in the extreme. Have two amps, one said to have
all of the dubious above, another judged by you not to have same. Do
the blind test by listening alone. If you can not spot a difference,
any difference, any such need no longer be considered valid. Will you
soon be asking to demonstrate this ability? There are folk here who
have repeatably offered to do it, you bring your own right brain.
"Not simple at all. We are evaluating how well the equipment under
tests reproduces a musical experience, measured against our life
experience of how live music sounds to us. And that involves an
involuntary emotional component that this is no evidence that
quick-switch, comparative testing can include."
A review of the archives would show innumberable times it has been
pointed out that no such contraists are required, another strawman.
You can listen as long as you want, on your gear, in your home, using
your music; all that is required is that yyou not know which bit of
As for the "life experience" and "musical experience", again
irrelevant strawman used in an attempt to divert the issue. Take an
amp of your choice said to create this "experience" and another
cchosen by you said not to do so and by listening alone demonstrate a
difference, any difference. If you cann't then we have our answer.
This is not rocket science and the attempts to inject some mystical
element into the question brings us smack back into the same arena of
excuses used by astrology and esp etc. who try to obscure the basic
situation wherein time after time they are shown not to have validity.
Put the burden of any thing your imagination can muster said to reside
in one amp and not in another. If you can not tell which amp is which
by detecting difference then the question is answered wherin the
source of such proported aspects pasted onto the amp reside.
Harry Lavo
You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a la the
ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that some
kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences, but
also preferences and the reasons for those preferences. Unfortunately ,
this is not "measuring thresholds". This is evaluating audio and requires
relaxed listening over periods of some length followed by a rating. It is a
common test technique, but it is not a one-person test. It must be done by
dozens, even hundreds, of people and then statistically compared to
determine difference on rated quality and on specific audio characteristics.
It is the statistical measure of difference that determine whether there is
a difference/preference, but it also measures "what" the perceived
difference/preference is in terms of audio characteristics. Most
importantly, it its a test that allows the emotional response to music
first, and then an evaluation of that response.
Since such a test is impossible for one person to do, and since an ab test
protocol for the home has not yet been developed which is simple enough to
be practical and transparent, I believe for now sighted home listening, even
with its possible error, is superior to using ABX. ABX or even direct,
comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can get
a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol nailed
down.
Ban
> And, you probably dont have problems with components and sound. You
> have less then 0.01% distorsions. Voila! Why you then reading this?
> Just dont tell me that you are soooo good man and you want help to
> others. You are allready happy with your sound and its time for
> something new. I see you like F1 so you can be another Schumacher. But
> this is not so easy like telling nonsenses.
> Or, maybe you trying to find speakers with 0.0001% distorsions. This
> is only thing what you need. Like i see in this group we have
> scientists, so you are maybe another one and you maybe have idea how
> to achieve this. I am very interested in this. You know much about
> CD-players, maybe about speakers too. Horns, TQWP, transmission line,
> bass reflex, closed box, variovent, open baffle, MKP, MKT, Elcos, air
> coils, ferrites, cooper foil coils, MF resistors..bla..bla....single
> drive speakers, two-way, three-way, or more??, co-axial speakers,
> tri-axial?...passive crossovers, active.. What is better for you?
Pet, what in the world makes you think your opinion has any more weight than
tose of others? You can list all the expressions you have heard or read
about, that doesn't give you a PhD either. To me it seems more you are
missing an academic title and want to proof that you have almost accumulated
the same amount of knowledge if not more.
I think this is foolish and also your neglected aversion against scientific
approach. Who are you to decide if a certain test is valid or not. I think
it much more foolish to pretend being an expert, but with all credentials
missing.
Or is it not so?
> you again dont hear differences because are distorsons always high? I
> can only gues what you think about peoples what cares about materials
> for boxes, even about varnish. This is hard to measure. Many things
> can be strange to me too, but i am openend mind, you are not, and
> this is not good. Sorry.
And how do you know that the poster is *not* "open mind". Your open
mindedness seems much smaller, because you do not even want to experiment,
but believe you have already enough understanding.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Ban
>> ............. People who did accept that such amps can sound
>> different and say they experience it on a common basis find that
>> using listening alone they cann't distinguish the amps.
>
>
> The worst thing is that this work probably in that way. Fantastic
> formula to cheat peoples. For me is enough hard only read this. Listen
> can be only nightmare. I listen music to enjoy, not for test.
> And i dont know all reasons why this metod dont work. I dont even know
> how this work. This is not my job, and i dont care about this. Your
> job is to find better solution (if you are so preoccupied with this)
> because this solution obviously dont work. And then you can talk about
> testing, not before.
> So now, go to work!
Hey Pet,
How do you determine if some piece of gear is not up to your definition of
good sound? You might enjoy listening to your crappy kitchen radio and be
contented. (And continuing your logic, you would not have an idea of
upgrading?)
Do you compare different components and how? Or do you buy a new piece of
gear just by recommendation?
And what kind of process helps you evaluating if you feel a component is
below your standards?
_Dejan_
> Not among the good ones...........
This is RELATIVELY true. And i say *often*, look again.
BTW, this remind me to one song "Black/White World"(translation).
But, i see colors.
> The good ones do.
Again. Wich is "good one"?-I dont ask for answer.
Bad/good? Black/white? Nothing more? In this moment i see ideological
differences too. And i am happy with this - with differences i see
colors.
But i see logic in you answer too. In theory one amp must be better
then another. If we now lay down all amps onto scale: from begin-bad
one, to finish-good one. How are big differences betwen first and
last?-biggest. Betwen one and next?-Veeeery Little - a lot amps is in
the market. So your answer is logical. In the same time, price
increasing of amps on this scale is for surely not linear. Far from
that. With many peaks and drops. This is nothing new.
>> Impossible
>>or not, it is more usefull.
>
> No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
> into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
> to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
I have not changed my mind. But good point. I am from poor country. I
dont have money. All audio gear what i have i made myself. Except
tweaked CD-Player wich is now broken. Even new laser is in this moment
to expensive to me. Living in better world is my dream.
In start i say "High-End", and Sullivan ask me to define this, but i
resist. I dont give him answer - my error. To me is not neccesary that
good component need to be expensive. And i dont say that are overpriced
componets always better.
But theory wich lead to conclussion that all amplifiers and CD-players
have same sound is crap. This is reason why i dont want read to much
about DBT, but last 3 days i spend my time to this like never before.
Enough for me. I dont like the way how are results of DBT interpreted
and published. Results of DBT can be only informations, NOT final
answer. Audio DBT is more ideology then science to me, with many holes.
If i change my mind, you will be know.
Thanks for replays
Cheers
_Dejan_
dont like discussions, because of big probability of hard words,
sparcles, etc. Ironically, *I* was guilt for this (i start this, and
some bad emotions are from me). Maybe is to late, but now i want stop
this like i was start: with apologyes. This dont mean that i think
different then before (sorry for that), but this discussion is endless
(like many others).
My belief: True is somewhere in the middle (sorry again).
Providentially, we all have ears and we can make answer for yourself.
For shure, never again one single word from me because is this
expirience awful for me, and probably for others. I come back to my
cave.
Thanks for answers, bye.
Peace
Petrovic Dejan
nab...@hotmail.com
Whoa, there. DBTs can determine differences and preferences.
Determining the reasons for those preferences is either trivial (ask
the subjects why they preferred something), or extremely difficult (as
in, I don't even know how I'd begin to tackle that one). Even Sean
Olive doesn't claim to have determined WHY people prefer flat speakers
with good dispersion. He only knows that those characteristics
correlate with listener preferences.
> Unfortunately ,
> this is not "measuring thresholds".
Whoa, again. Determining difference is most definitely "measuring
thresholds." By definition.
bob
_Dejan_
news:d6e4e...@news3.newsguy.com...
Yes, i know, i tell him to hard words. Its answer is probably free of
bad intention. And my reaction is like from idiot. This is not hard to
confess to me. But in this group are some peoples wich have its
believes, and THIS peoples talk free of of any another possibility. (in
a way like "this is like that, story is over").
Please accept my appology for my behaviour
_Dejan_
> Hey Pet,
> How do you determine if some piece of gear is not up to your
definition of
> good sound? You might enjoy listening to your crappy kitchen radio
and be
> contented. (And continuing your logic, you would not have an idea of
> upgrading?)
> Do you compare different components and how? Or do you buy a new
piece of
> gear just by recommendation?
> And what kind of process helps you evaluating if you feel a component
is
> below your standards?
> --
> ciao Ban
> Bordighera, Italy
I am tired.
...listening, buying, testing, recommendation and crappy kitchen
radio....
In short: Peoples here give me advice that is not important wich
CD-player i need to buy because all CD-players have low distortion. I
have no comment. If is this result of advanced scientific listening
testing, then i dont want test nevermore. I know, i am Pet because i
think so, but what i can? Because i am Pet.
I am out
Greetings
Harry Lavo
I am reminded of what the mathematician at HE2005 said about engineers --
they are also too busy to get to the end to bother to examine the underlying
premises. I simply and profoundly disagree, and have indicated why. You
are not buying. I can't see that this discussion has to go any further.
Stewart Pinkerton
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d6bg9...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>
>> Not among the good ones...........
>
>This is RELATIVELY true.
It's true to a level well below human perception. And that includes
yours.
> And i say *often*, look again.
>BTW, this remind me to one song "Black/White World"(translation).
>But, i see colors.
>
>> The good ones do.
>
>Again. Wich is "good one"?-I dont ask for answer.
>Bad/good? Black/white? Nothing more? In this moment i see ideological
>differences too. And i am happy with this - with differences i see
>colors.
We all do - but sometimes there's no colour to be seen.
>But i see logic in you answer too. In theory one amp must be better
>then another.
In practice also, they are all different - but not *audibly* so.
>If we now lay down all amps onto scale: from begin-bad
>one, to finish-good one. How are big differences betwen first and
>last?-biggest. Betwen one and next?-Veeeery Little - a lot amps is in
>the market. So your answer is logical. In the same time, price
>increasing of amps on this scale is for surely not linear. Far from
>that. With many peaks and drops. This is nothing new.
Indeed so, which means that the majority of good mid-price amps all
sound the same - and they are sonically transparent. It's only at the
very bottom and the very top of the market that you find inferior
products. Strange, but true. It's not an asymptote, it's a bathtub
curve.
>>> Impossible
>>>or not, it is more usefull.
>>
>> No, what was *really* useful was all the engineering effort that went
>> into making sonically transparent CD players and amplifiers available
>> to all. The 'high end' in 2005 is merely big boys toys and snobbery.
>I have not changed my mind. But good point. I am from poor country. I
>dont have money. All audio gear what i have i made myself. Except
>tweaked CD-Player wich is now broken. Even new laser is in this moment
>to expensive to me. Living in better world is my dream.
>In start i say "High-End", and Sullivan ask me to define this, but i
>resist. I dont give him answer - my error. To me is not neccesary that
>good component need to be expensive. And i dont say that are overpriced
>componets always better.
>But theory wich lead to conclussion that all amplifiers and CD-players
>have same sound is crap.
Indeed so - and you won't read anyone saying that.
However, you *will* read people saying that all *well designed* amps
and CD players sound the same - and no one has yet been able to show
that this is not true.
>This is reason why i dont want read to much
>about DBT, but last 3 days i spend my time to this like never before.
>Enough for me. I dont like the way how are results of DBT interpreted
>and published. Results of DBT can be only informations, NOT final
>answer. Audio DBT is more ideology then science to me, with many holes.
It is however the most sensitive test that we have, and sighted
testing is easily shown to be useless for small differences. DBT is
not 'ideology' at all, which is why it is used in so many branches of
science.
Stewart Pinkerton
>You are right. I was referring to quick-switch, comparative DBT's a la the
>ABX promoted here for so long by Arny. And I can agree with you that some
>kind of blind test is appropriate to determine, not just differences, but
>also preferences and the reasons for those preferences. Unfortunately ,
>this is not "measuring thresholds". This is evaluating audio and requires
>relaxed listening over periods of some length followed by a rating. It is a
>common test technique, but it is not a one-person test. It must be done by
>dozens, even hundreds, of people and then statistically compared to
>determine difference on rated quality and on specific audio characteristics.
>It is the statistical measure of difference that determine whether there is
>a difference/preference, but it also measures "what" the perceived
>difference/preference is in terms of audio characteristics. Most
>importantly, it its a test that allows the emotional response to music
>first, and then an evaluation of that response.
>
>Since such a test is impossible for one person to do, and since an ab test
>protocol for the home has not yet been developed which is simple enough to
>be practical and transparent, I believe for now sighted home listening, even
>with its possible error, is superior to using ABX.
This is utter nonsense! Because you think that DBT requires hundreds
of resulytts to verify its accuracy, you go on to suggest that it
*follows* that a *known* flawed test method is superior? Sighted
testing is *useless* for small differences, that can be proved by
*anyone* in a matter of minutes.
You seem to be a person of little respource or determination, as I
have no problem whatever in setting up double-blind tests, with or
without fast switching. If indeed you insist on long listening
periods, then it's even easier, as simple cable-swapping is
appropriate for such a leisurely and relaxed comparison. Just don't
peek!
Of course, such a scheme still won't give results which match your
prejudices, so no doubt you'll come up with another 'problem'. If only
you would put as much energy into actually doing the research, rather
than picking minute flaws in existing and well-practiced techniques.
Pluck first the beam from thine own eye.............
>ABX or even direct,
>comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
>measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can get
>a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol nailed
>down.
This ain't rocket science, Harry! Just match levels and make it
double-blind, that's all you have to do. Hardly a challenge......
Harry Lavo
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d6bf5...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
>snip<
> Determining the reasons for those preferences is either trivial (ask
> the subjects why they preferred something), or extremely difficult (as
> in, I don't even know how I'd begin to tackle that one). Even Sean
> Olive doesn't claim to have determined WHY people prefer flat speakers
> with good dispersion. He only knows that those characteristics
> correlate with listener preferences.
>
I agree, sometimes it is easy to surmise the reason, and sometimes it is
very difficult. "Creativity" in test design is sometimes required to get
insight.
You do this (although you can blow it) by first getting a "quality" rating
of some kind (usually a five point scale, which if statistically different
between the two pieces of gear presumes a sensed differenced.). Then you
ask for a series of carefully constructed subsidiary ratings for various
aspects of the test experience. You can then apply statistical significance
tests to determine which also prove "different" in support of the overall
rating. Then if you are highly skilled at statistics, you can also do
multi-dimensional scaling, which can further help illuminate the reasons for
difference/preferences, in particular what the relative importance (or
unimportance) of various factors were.
Let me give you two possible audio examples, one soft and a bit far out, and
one fairly defined and practical. Assume you are Sony having coming up with
SACD and a new player. You are measuring it against your flagship player at
roughtly the same price point. You use a test hybrid SACD with exactly the
same mix done using the best available technology for both. The SACD wins..
If you had asked "how relaxed were you while listening ?" and found a
significant difference tha highly correclated with overall preference, then
you would know that somehow this unit was putting the listener more at ease
than the other. You might have to do probing with focus groups to get
further insight, and you would have to use your audio and engineering
expertise to surmise what might be causing this, make sure it is intrinsic
to the system, and perhaps decide to use it in your marketing. On the other
hand, if the factor that correlated was "rank your impressions of the
soundstaging" then you would know the unit was preferred mostly because of
better soundstaging (and if you designed the scale or scales right, exactly
how the better soundstage was percceived).
Let me give you a real example from another field. In a past life I ran a
small mid-westen mexican food restaurant chain of about 120 stores. We had
a standard, square-cornered slump block store similar to the old Taco Bells.
We designed a new store that had a much softer adobe look, with rounded
corners and a less plastic interior. Our testing asked people to rate the
stores on a whole host of atrributes (not comparative, just rate them) Then
statistics were applied. It turned out men were less likely to frequent the
new store than the old. But the market researchers went crazy, because they
just couldn't explain it...all the standard measurements they thought
important in a restaurant rated the same, and on a few measures the new
store clearly excelled. But I had thrown in a group of questions relating
to appropriateness of being a place to bring a date, when the would consider
eating there, etc. The "date" question did correlate strongly with the
opposite negative frequency intent...in other words it was a good place to
take a date, a less good place to eat frequently. Using these as clues,
follow up research showed that the typical young male found the stores
somewhat "uncomfortably" feminine (what with the new rounded corners, softer
materials and lighting, etc.) and was also perceived as (again
uncomfortably) "more upscale" even though they knew and indeed their formal
rating showed that the price was no diffrent than in the older stores. This
led to a slight modification of the store design, easy to fix once you found
out what was opertional.
> > Unfortunately this is not "measuring thresholds".
>
> Whoa, again. Determining difference is most definitely "measuring
> thresholds." By definition.
>
Depends somewhat on the definition. Typically it is measuring differences
in perception and preference. It presumes awareness, but this may be an
unconscious quality based directly on emotion as well as more conscious
awareness as I attempted to show above.
One of the advantages of doing monadic testing is that no time are you
putting the test-taker in the position of "going comparative" with it's
supposed elevation of left brain thinking. The young men rating these
stores were not consciously examining their feelings of masculinity, nor
rationally deterrmining their projected eating frequency. They just gave
answers. It was the statistical comparison that determined the differences
and significance of same which ultimately led to the underlying feelings re:
masculinity and cultural appropriateness. That is why I think it is a much
better test for something as ethereal as rating equipment in its ability to
reproduce live sound.
Harry Lavo
I'll ignore all the attacks on my competency and bias by this *most
objective* of all usegroup players.
>
> >ABX or even direct,
> >comparative AB testing are two cognitive and left-brain IMO to actual
> >measure what they profess to measure. Perhaps that will change if we can
get
> >a non-quick-switch, semi-monadic, transparent home ab test protocol
nailed
> >down.
>
> This ain't rocket science, Harry! Just match levels and make it
> double-blind, that's all you have to do. Hardly a challenge......
Fine, if you want to do it casually, amateurish, and ... *wrong*.
Not so fine, if you are talking about doing it professionally so you can be
sure the results are as accurate as they can be...but it would still be
*wrong* if it measures the wrong thing because intrinsically it alters the
mode of listening.
I am trying to spell out (based on a research background in general and
audio logic in particular) the kind of test needed to verify that the test
doesn't get in the way of what it attempts to measure. Not hard to
understand, just hard to do. But until it is done, the test you want us to
use is unproven and suspect at best and in error at worst.
What is the sense of doing a test if you don't know that it measures the
thing it purports to measure? I'd rather spend my time and energy trying to
help somebody (the group, Stereophile, somebody) do the work necessary to
determine what type of test measures most accurately *what we want to
measure .... proficiency in playing music with realism*.
out...@city-net.com
they are also too busy to get to the end to bother to examine the
underlying
premises. I simply and profoundly disagree, and have indicated why. You
are not buying. I can't see that this discussion has to go any further."
The subjective enterprise cann't demonstrate even it's most basic
assumptions. The above same cuts both ways in all points. It depends on
what one places at the spot of underlying etc. and over looks in haste to
support an end. For each and every aspect that is said to be critical
that some amp audibly has and others don't then spotting same should be
easy to pick, you just don't get to know which is active but in every
other aspect you wish are free to identify the amp you think holds those
aspects. It ain't rocket science, nor does being a math person prove an
obstical; it's just a listening alone test. In haste to get to the end
that the subjective enterprise is valid, the underlying undemonstrated
assumption is made that the enterprise can not have such a critical and
obvious flaw, the failure to demonstrate the validity of the enterprise
must lie in the test which continiously fails to confirm. So too is the
automatic and oft repeated haste of astrology and esp which too "know"
they are right and are victums to being validated by testing but failing
same are only speculation. When faced with "might be" and demonstrated
every day in the whole of human testing why should we buy the pig in the
poke?
out...@city-net.com
said to clearly lack them. Listen as long as you like using the exact
context and gear of your choice to either in any order or none at all to
really nail down your conclusion. Then have someone choose one and add
only a cloth over the connections which might reveal which amp is active
and pronounce which it is, based squarely on what was so very obvious that
caused you to pick the obviously contrasting amps in the first place and
which you so clearly confirmed just minutes before. No comparson need be
made. A random series, still with no comparison amps is done with each
amp ending up with the same number of trial attempts. If the differences
reside in the gear the results will jump right off the paper on which the
results were recorded. No left brain or right brain or any other
objections of the day, just a recreation of your experience; you just
don't get to know which amp is active.
All of the many objections are at this point conjecture and must in
themselves be shown to be confounding elements before one need design a
test to control for them. Just do the test.
Norman M. Schwartz
> What is the sense of doing a test if you don't know that it measures the
> thing it purports to measure? I'd rather spend my time and energy trying
> to
> help somebody (the group, Stereophile, somebody) do the work necessary to
> determine what type of test measures most accurately *what we want to
> measure .... proficiency in playing music with realism*.
>
What's the sense in doing that since we all hear and listen differently?
Harry Lavo
news:d6npq...@news4.newsguy.com...
The issue, Norm, is "how do we determine the underlying truth...is there a
difference of isn't there?". We can only do that by using the best
technique for the taks, the one least likely to get in the way of recording
the full impact of the musical test on the testee. That is monadic
testing...i.e. listen for an extended period, completely relaxed...then rate
the event. Ideally don't even know what is being tested. Then rely on
statistics to tell you whether or not the two devices under test are
different or not. That is not a single person test...it requires a bunch of
people...dozens at least, preferably several hundred...and they are needed
as well to determine "truth" in the sense of being broader than one person.
Then, once we have that measure, you have a standard to test single-person
blind AB testing, ABX, ABC/hr, etc. against to see if they give the same
results, measured over a bunch of people as well. And then, only if they
do, can they be used as a definitive test for an individual person with any
validity. That work has not been done...by Arny nor by anybody else in
audio so far as I can tell.
Harry Lavo
This is a comparative test, and if such testing "kills" the right brain/Type
I response than it gives erroneous results, not matter how much listening
preceeds it. Until that possibility is tested and put to rest (and there is
reason to believe it may be valid) then such testing is not only foolish but
potentially misleading.
nowater
> Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
> posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
> But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
> the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> the speakers inthe room.
I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers), but
90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
over.....
and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
sighted, too.
I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.
....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.
nab...@hotmail.com
> <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d62g6...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Also, lest you think we are frauds, rest assured that everyone who
> > posts here really is interested in the quality of audio reproduction.
> > But some of us think the best way to achieve that is to concentrate on
> > the pieces of the chain that really do make a difference in sound
> > quality: the recording itself, the loudspeakers, and the placement of
> > the speakers inthe room.
>
> I must say there is little discussion of the above 3 items that "really do
> make a difference". I agree that they are the 3 critical items (although the
> whole room treatment is critical, not just the placement of speakers),
Agreed. I was trying to be succinct.
> but
> 90% of the traffic is subjectivist v objectivist, over and over and over and
> over.....
Yeah. I wish the subjectivists would give it a rest. :-)
> and 90% of the few threads on speaker and recording are subjectivist /
> sighted, too.
It's well-nigh impossible for amateurs to do blind evaluations of
speakers. Unless you work for Harman or a Canadian manufacturer,
sighted subjective evaluations are all you've got.
> I'd love to hear from someone or see references to actual distortion
> measurements of speakers, of various harmonics and intermod dist.
Good sources for speaker measurements include:
www.stereophile.com (Ignore the reviews themselves and go straight to
John Atkinson's measurements.)
www.soundstageav.com/avreviews_speakers.html (The ones labeled NRC have
measurements.)
www.soundandvisionmag.com (Tests by Tom Nousaine accompany speaker
reviews.)
www.theaudiocritic.com (Very little so far, and full site access costs
$10.)
> ....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
> range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.
I don't know of anybody who actually measures recordings.
bob
____________
"Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary
if these conclusions are felt to be in error."
--Stanley P. Lipshitz
Dennis Moore
news:d70en...@news3.newsguy.com...
> ....and actual measurements of recordings' noise floor, musical dynamic
> range, evidence of clipping and compression, average-to-peak levels.
>
Actually not much of a problem with some available software for
you to investigate what is on CD's or DVD's with your home PC.
Many popular CD's only have average to peak levels of around
15 dB. Some don't have any more dynamic range than that.
Noise floors are almost never more than 70 dB down from max level
in the few dozen I have looked at this way. In general objectively,
seems few if any recordings have needs exceeding the capability
of your basic CD format. Actually few even exercise the CD format
very much.
Also can be instructive to play with compression, expansion and
other alterations of recordings with CoolEdit (now Adobe Audition)
or similar programs. Frequency response tilts are enlightening too.
Results can be very surprising. Such as finding a little compression
often seems to enhance the subjective dynamic range. While expansion
leads to a lifeless low energy sound that is subjectively 'compressed'.
Or that slight frequency cuts in the high frequencies sound like a boost
of the low end or vice versa.
Maybe someone can suggest a bit of software with these capabilities
that is less costly than Adobe Audition has become.
Dennis